Channel Tunnel Rail Link [Archive]

Engels

January 14th, 2006, 02:06 AM

That track beside the motorway has got to be better than a million adverts for Eurostar. Imagine your reaction, driving along at a seemingly fast 70mph, when 18 carriages of a train tear by at 186 mph.

This is so true, i was my way from Holland to france with my misses and inlaws and one went past us so quickly i was astounded, they are so long so it still takes time to go past you but you can't help to be impressed and so was everybody else in the car.

The thing about the whole Channel Tunnel + rail link project is it's one of the most impressive engineering feats in human history but people don't really consider that because being a rail line it's quite mundane. That is until you actually use it or get near it.. You can't drive from Paris to Calais in 2.15hrs, the idea that you can get to central London in that time is ridiculos.. and you'll never get caught in traffic.

I remeber going through the tunnel by car as a kid when it first opened, we had always used overnigth Ferrys to get to France before, now we would drive from Birmingham to Folkstone, 4hrs, through check in, short wait, drive on, 1hr turn arround & you are driving off in France (35min trip rest was average wait). Then you could drive to Britany and be there quicker than getting a ferry direct from Plymouth/ Poole.

But it's the Eurostar that i think is so impressive.. 2.15 to Paris, city centre to city centre. It took me 1.15 to get from Heathrow to London Marylbone vis the tube once, If you have to fly from airports and are in the city you'll take so long to get to them at both ends that you could conceveably spend 2.15hrs doing just that, never mind checking in 1hr before departure, collecting bags at the other end.. etc as well as the flight.

Rigadon

January 14th, 2006, 03:23 AM

The cost of running a full security check-in service airport style means they plan to pull out of Waterloo. I think this is a mistake. I reckon they should switch to a simple passport check once the train is going and share the Waterloo platfroms with South West Trains.

No we should join Schengen and ditch the waste of space passport controls.

Monkey

January 14th, 2006, 10:15 AM

The French moved quickly and decisively but here it has taken far too long and frankly I find this whole project a national embarrassment.It's not the project that's a national embarassment but the fact that we didn't have it for so long. The project is putting it right!

Zim Flyer

January 14th, 2006, 11:30 AM

No we should join Schengen and ditch the waste of space passport controls.

I have mixed feelings about this after what happened with one of the escaped bombers.

Tubeman

January 15th, 2006, 02:02 PM

I have mixed feelings about this after what happened with one of the escaped bombers.

...Who had a passport and passed through passport control at Waterloo! :crazy:

Its difficult to stop someone when you don't know their name!

If he'd have been apprehended at waterloo you would have a point, but the fact he didn't just goes to show!

Tubeman

January 15th, 2006, 02:12 PM

I find this whole project a national embarrassment.

:crazy:

Andrew

January 15th, 2006, 03:50 PM

Why do we even need passports? You don't need a passport to go between any of the mainland EU countries.

CharlieP

January 15th, 2006, 03:50 PM

It's not the project that's a national embarassment but the fact that we didn't have it for so long. The project is putting it right!

Exactly - if you look at the map of existing and proposed high-speed lines in Europe, our contribution to the network is a tiny little stub through Kent...

crazyevildude

January 15th, 2006, 06:09 PM

Exactly - if you look at the map of existing and proposed high-speed lines in Europe, our contribution to the network is a tiny little stub through Kent...

Where can I see this map?

JDRS

January 15th, 2006, 06:25 PM

Where can I see this map?

The only one I could find:

http://www.geographia.com/etc/RailPaths.gif

samsonyuen

January 15th, 2006, 07:13 PM

^"by 2005", eh?

Rigadon

January 16th, 2006, 12:20 AM

...Who had a passport and passed through passport control at Waterloo! :crazy:

Its difficult to stop someone when you don't know their name!

If he'd have been apprehended at waterloo you would have a point, but the fact he didn't just goes to show!

he was also found by fellow EU police n Italy just as quickly as he may have been i hed stayed in the UK. Its a if we don't trust the authorities elsewhere in the EU

U475 Foxtrot

January 16th, 2006, 12:24 AM

:crazy:
Of course it’s a national embarrassment.

I wholly appreciate the Channel Tunnel is one of the great engineering wonders of Europe; and Waterloo, St Pancras, EuroLille, Midi/Zuid and The Gare du Nord are (or will be) very fine stations.
However, Eurotunnel are operating a barely financially viable tunnel which was delivered two years late in 1994, without a high speed rail link on the English side for another 10 years and are desparate to be bailed out by the UK and French governments. They’re in a dire financial position from which they're never recovered - presently a crippling loss around £6bn - and their situation has not been helped by the low cost airlines and the point that people actually enjoyed traveling by ferry.

My other big issue has been with the planning, consultation and decision process of the UK Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

In 1988, BR evaluated four route options through Kent, all of which approached the capital from the south. The preferred BR route was eventually announced which planned its London section through tunnels under south-east and central London into Kings Cross. Arup then decided - on their own initiative - to look at alternative routes for the link and their key difference was to approach central London from the east, via Stratford.

BR then commissioned Arup (and others) to develop their route proposals, and in October 1991 the Secretary of State announced Government preference for the route which all added to the delay and cost.

The Tunnel was first suggested 1964 so it's not as if we knew the link wasn't coming but the numerous routes and timescale blighted thousands of people for years. So for all these reasons I can only view the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Tunnel as an over budget, delayed, blighting, semi-economically viable, engineering masterpiece as a national embarrassment.

Oh and it also helped to decimate jobs, freight and passengers at the ports of Folkestone, Dover, Sheerness and Ramsgate.

On a lighter note there are some good construction pics on here
http://www.ctrl.co.uk/photos/newdisplay.asp?ID=2705&L=9&SL=84

And some bad news here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4088868.stm

CharlieP

January 16th, 2006, 12:35 AM

Where can I see this map?

If you Google for a bit you should find one. Here's one in German (the thick lines are proper LGVs):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Hgv_netz.jpg/599px-Hgv_netz.jpg

and here's another which doesn't show the German lines:

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/jpg/tgvgeomap.jpg

Spain is also building high-speed lines as we speak...

U475 Foxtrot

January 16th, 2006, 12:36 AM

Possible UK network

http://tinypic.com/kbdu9h.gif

tayser

January 16th, 2006, 08:52 AM

Blighty - K?öln in 2.5 hours when that LGV is complete (with a Burssels bypass)??

Bob

January 16th, 2006, 11:55 AM

Why do we even need passports? You don't need a passport to go between any of the mainland EU countries.
We, along with Rep. of Ireland haven't signed up to the Shengen (sp?) accord which got rid of National border controls. We're too scared of terrorists and immigration to do that.

CharlieP

January 16th, 2006, 12:00 PM

As I said, the TGV system was the featured page on Wikipedia yesterday, and there's a lot of interesting information including proposed future LGVs...

Irish Blood English Heart

January 18th, 2006, 12:41 PM

can you give us a link Charlie?

Zim Flyer

January 18th, 2006, 01:34 PM

can you give us a link Charlie?

why don't you go on to wikipedia and do a search you lazy sod.

Capzilla

January 18th, 2006, 01:46 PM

Ciudad Bristol

January 18th, 2006, 02:00 PM

I'm still hoping for a non-transfer London service from Rotterdam/Amsterdam once our link to Brussels opens in 2007. Would be a nice alternative to flying, if the price is going to be right. Tracks seem to near completion here in Holland, although there are some delays in northern Belgium. :(

Presumably Eurostar will do a non-transfer service to Amsterdam once the Antwerp tunnel thing is done?

Anybody know when the Madrid - Barcelona AVE line will be opened? Is it under construction?

Zim Flyer

January 18th, 2006, 02:03 PM

Presumably Eurostar will do a non-transfer service to Amsterdam once the Antwerp tunnel thing is done?

Anybody know when the Madrid - Barcelona AVE line will be opened? Is it under construction?

I don't know mate, Don Qui would be your best bet, he is half Spannish, speaks the lingo and spends alot of time on their forums.

cdavies2000

January 18th, 2006, 02:18 PM

I think I remember reading that the Eurostar trainsets won't be compatible with the safety systems on the new Dutch link which will force passengers to change trains at Brussels. Can anyone confirm this?

Bob

January 18th, 2006, 03:57 PM

From railnews.co.uk
Seems timetabling is being improved for the Germany / Netherlands connections but no direct service yet. AFAIK it's the passport issues that stop a direct service to places other Paris and Brussels. Thalys high speed rail services operate across borders with no problems. New separated platforms with border controls have to be constructed and quite understandably the Dutch and Germans are reluctant to spend millions building new platforms wherever the British decide they want to stop.

EUROSTAR’S RECORD YEAR
17 Jan 2006

EUROSTAR has reported a record year in 2005, both in sales and passenger numbers.

With a 14% increase over the previous year in what Eurostar calls “Business Premier” traffic, there is every indication that the train really is making a comeback, at least on cross Channel services, says the weekly Air & Business Travel News bulletin (http://www.abtn.co.uk/).

During 2005, Eurostar recorded its highest ever market share, taking 71% of the London – Paris and 64% of the London – Brussels air/rail routes.

Punctuality in 2005, at 86.3%, was much better than the punctuality rates of airline competitors operating on the London to Paris and Brussels routes. Recent data from the Civil Aviation Authority shows that punctuality at Heathrow Airport has remained below 70%.

A tenth daily weekday service is being introduced between London and Brussels, beginning 13 February, with onward connections to Amsterdam and Cologne.

"Our focus on business travellers is paying off," said Richard Brown, chief executive.

"As some airlines cut out their business-class cabins, they're also cutting out their customers."

Eurostar said it expected passenger to rise further this year. The World Cup kicks off in Germany in June and the Da Vinci Code, much of which is set in Paris, is expected to lure more travellers to France's capital city.

In 2007 Eurostar will switch to St Pancras International. Journey times will fall further with London – Paris down to 2 hours 15 minutes; London – Brussels 1 hour 51 minutes and London – Lille just 1 hour 20 minutes.

Capzilla

January 18th, 2006, 04:31 PM

CharlieP

January 18th, 2006, 04:44 PM

can you give us a link Charlie?

http://www.wikipedia.org/

Bob

January 18th, 2006, 06:13 PM

Rotterdam Central is being rebuilt with HSR in mind, so why not? Furthermore, Amsterdam Central is being refurbished as well while in a few years the HSR would terminate as Amsterdam WTC/South which will also undergo a major overhaul.

And reluctance makes no sense whatsoever anyway: Eurostar is not just for Brits going to Europe, I've heard rumours sometimes Europeans use it to travel to the UK. A direct service to London would benefit me as much as it would Londoners, if not more.It's not just the platforms it's the security desks, scanning equipment and the rooms needed to separate the different zones. Why can't we just nip from one platform to another like all the other Europeans do without all the corridors, escalators, scanning, checking, scanning......escalators. Fine, check my passport on the train, but it's a train in Northern Europe not the North / South Korea border.

Bob

January 18th, 2006, 06:15 PM

..and getting rid of the security desks would also take another 30mins off the journey time!

Rigadon

January 18th, 2006, 08:18 PM

We, along with Rep. of Ireland haven't signed up to the Shengen (sp?) accord which got rid of National border controls. We're too scared of terrorists and immigration to do that.

Its got nothing to do with terrorists. We had an open border with Ireland during the height of the IRA. We're too scared of the tabloid's headlines, might be more accurate.

Sparks

January 18th, 2006, 08:53 PM

What happend to all the great photo updates from the CTRL website?

nick_taylor

January 18th, 2006, 11:12 PM

^^ For some reason the pictures have stopped being taken and those that were taken ever so often are very large and of a poor quality. :(

Capzilla

January 19th, 2006, 10:13 AM

It's not just the platforms it's the security desks, scanning equipment and the rooms needed to separate the different zones. Why can't we just nip from one platform to another like all the other Europeans do without all the corridors, escalators, scanning, checking, scanning......escalators.

I've used Eurostar, I'm aware of this. I'm just saying that because they are going to tear down the current Rotterdam station completely and build a new one, now would've been the perfect time to include all that.

Although I suppose they'll just wait for the UK to join Schengen. But if that takes another two decades, just imagine how Rotterdam could upstage Antwerp and Amsterdam by providing room for such services already.

Bob

January 19th, 2006, 11:00 AM

eddyk

January 23rd, 2006, 04:14 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_channel_tunnel_rail_link/img/4.jpg

Found this image.

JDRS

February 8th, 2006, 02:27 PM

From BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4692536.stm)

Thameslink station given go-ahead

Work to complete a station that will link with the new Eurostar terminal is to start this summer after the government announced a £63m cash boost.

The new Thameslink stop, built beneath St Pancras station in north London, will now be fitted out with platforms and should be in use by December 2007.

Concerns had been raised the station would not be used for years due to a lack of funding.

The stop will replace King's Cross Thameslink station on Pentonville Road.

Making the announcement on Wednesday, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, said: "This new station will provide an excellent interchange between Thameslink and national and international services.

'Twin-platform station'

"It will also provide better access to passengers who use the Olympic Javelin service from St Pancras to Stratford during the 2012 Games."

Passengers faced months of disruption as the work, which finished in May 2005, was carried out.

According to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL), the "box" is large enough to accommodate a twin-platform station that will allow passengers direct access to the refurbished St Pancras International, which is scheduled to open in 2007.

Work on the station is being carried out by London Continental Railways - the company currently completing the second stage of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link from north Kent into London.

London mayor Ken Livingstone said: "We are delighted the government has stepped in and agreed to fund these works, which are vital to improving rail services in London.

"Not only will it deliver a modern, expanded and accessible station, it is a critical piece of the jigsaw in delivering our Olympic transport plans."

DarJoLe

February 8th, 2006, 02:56 PM

I knew the Olympics would come in handy for something.

samsonyuen

February 9th, 2006, 09:29 PM

Good news. The link to the tube station(s) should be better too, eh?

Bob

February 15th, 2006, 04:10 PM

This
http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/content/newsimages/lr1052704051.jpg
becomes
http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/content/newsimages/tlink_lr2.jpg

http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/content/newsimages/tlink3.jpg
The CTRL site has been updated:
http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/

Here's a few more. There are not many new pics though.
http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/content/newsimages/lrdscf0716.JPG

http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/content/newsimages/lrimg22377.JPG

http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/content/newsimages/lrmac4185.JPG

http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/content/newsimages/lr225.jpg

Bob

February 15th, 2006, 04:14 PM

Also from http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/

London and Continental Railways Stations and Property (LCSP) has a clear and exciting vision for St Pancras International station.

This iconic landmark aims to redefine the railway station for the 21st Century, not just as the key terminus for high-speed rail in the UK - but as a truly grand station. The man spearheading the operational strategy for St Pancras International is Mike Luddy, a commercial and marketing expert who was at the forefront of the British airports revolution.

Mike Luddy joined LCSP in 2004, as Project Director for St Pancras International. His role is clear - to develop the vision for St Pancras International, create the retail and operational development strategies for the station and deliver the project on time and on budget.

The vision for St Pancras International is 'to be a unique London landmark delivering the best performing transport destination experience in Europe through operational and service excellence.'

From the customer's perspective, the difference between St Pancras International and other stations will be in its wide appeal as 'somewhere to meet', rather than being just a transport terminus.

As Mike Luddy puts it: "Other stations are UK stations, St Pancras International is the European gateway. Other stations are transport hubs, St Pancras International is a destination experience."

Ultimately, the vision for St Pancras is to be 'Europe's destination station'.

But it's just not about creating a brand. Mike Luddy's aim is to establish St Pancras International as a strong business success, delivering both commercial and operational revenue from its first year. As Mike is quick to point out, this is not going to be a typical station...

"To deliver the vision, St Pancras International has to re-invent the UK railway model, in terms of service, retail and hospitality. We are setting up a business; we have to deliver more than just a station."

This commercial strategy is based on a business model that Mike created in an earlier role at BAA, and which he honed to dramatically turn around the fortunes of both Newcastle and Bristol airports. He drove a rationalisation of the business, increased footfall, developed a new identity and made the airports quite simply a place where people wanted to go.

The results were impressive. He delivered a 385% increase in profit at Bristol Airport, and a five-fold increase in passenger numbers in four years. Whilst at Newcastle Airport, he doubled passenger numbers and improved profits by 68% in just two years.

St Pancras International will be delivering a unique proposition that has proved immensely successful at New York's Grand Central Station - namely delivering high quality, independent retail and hospitality. We're talking about concepts like the longest champagne bar in Europe, a micro-brewery and a fresh farmers market - an eclectic mix.

Far from being daunted by the task, Mike has an all-consuming mission to deliver one of the most unique stations in the UK, if not Europe.

"I've always had a passion for Victorian history. They were amazing. We've got an opportunity here to re-discover what they knew, which was about creating buildings as places to enjoy, and celebrating the romance of the railway. Here is an amazing opportunity to set a new benchmark for what a station should be in 21st Century Britain."

Mike sounds quite useful

eddyk

February 15th, 2006, 04:14 PM

Woo, at last.

Zim Flyer

February 15th, 2006, 04:19 PM

"I've always had a passion for Victorian history. They were amazing. We've got an opportunity here to re-discover what they knew, which was about creating buildings as places to enjoy, and celebrating the romance of the railway. Here is an amazing opportunity to set a new benchmark for what a station should be in 21st Century Britain."

Mike sounds quite useful

excellent stuff, I like this Mike chap, the Victorians were like moden day Romans with an amazing long term engineering vision. They gave us people like Bazzlejet and Kingdom Brunel. If Mike is using them as his idols, he won't go far wrong.

Good pics as well Bob

:cheers:

Bob

February 15th, 2006, 04:34 PM

I missed a couple,

http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/content/newsimages/lr10518080539.jpg

http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/content/newsimages/lrmac4396.JPG

http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/content/newsimages/lr045.jpg

http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/content/newsimages/lrmac4290.JPG

potto

February 15th, 2006, 05:54 PM

St Pancras International will be delivering a unique proposition that has proved immensely successful at New York's Grand Central Station - namely delivering high quality, independent retail and hospitality. We're talking about concepts like the longest champagne bar in Europe, a micro-brewery and a fresh farmers market - an eclectic mix.

"I've always had a passion for Victorian history. They were amazing. We've got an opportunity here to re-discover what they knew, which was about creating buildings as places to enjoy, and celebrating the romance of the railway. Here is an amazing opportunity to set a new benchmark for what a station should be in 21st Century Britain."

:drool:

JDRS

February 16th, 2006, 06:14 PM

All looks good and we have the Midland Grand Hotel being redeveloped too :)

sweek

February 18th, 2006, 01:29 PM

I've used Eurostar, I'm aware of this. I'm just saying that because they are going to tear down the current Rotterdam station completely and build a new one, now would've been the perfect time to include all that.

Although I suppose they'll just wait for the UK to join Schengen. But if that takes another two decades, just imagine how Rotterdam could upstage Antwerp and Amsterdam by providing room for such services already.I don't think there's that much potential traffic for this route, since it's effectively slower than airlines, and more expensive.
Don't forget it's quite a detour to go via Brussels, that Brussels - Antwerp is not a high speed line but just conventional tracks, and that there are tons of flights - both cheap no frill ones and traditional ones - from all the London airports to Amsterdam airport, and quite a few from/to Rotterdam airport as well.
The Dutch airports are close and well connected to the actual cities as well.

The HSL will be 1h50 from London to Brussels and 1h46 from Brussels to Amsterdam. I don't think there's any way people are going to sit in a train for over 3h30 when a flight takes 1h10.

Bob

February 19th, 2006, 12:35 PM

City centre to city centre the train would probably work out quicker though. I guess it depends where you are coming from and going to. For me to get to Waterloo or Kings X takes about 45 mins, Heathrow or Stanstead, 1 1/2 hours, plus check in ya de ya de ya. Even at just over 3 hours the first Eurostar London - Paris services took 60% of the routes traffic and that is now mid 70's%. The flight time of London - Paris is just over an hour and yet most choose the train.

Long term Eurostar prices will drop as in the next year or two fixed pricing for use of the Chunnel ends. Air fares are more likely to rise as taxes are likely to go on air fuel.

And there are environmental arguments that are gaining ever more prominence. An aircraft flying London to Paris produces 15 times the amount of CO2 the train does.

What about comfort? I find most planes claustrophobic and the experience is generally unpleasant.

Tubeman

February 19th, 2006, 01:27 PM

Essex

February 19th, 2006, 02:53 PM

I'd happily sit on a train for 3.5 hours to get to Amsterdam

I could be at Central Station in under 4 hours, if I were to fly it would be a longer and more stressful journey:

Allow 1 hour to get to Heathrow
+2 hours before flight departure check-in time
+1h10m flight
+Transfer into Central Amsterdam (30 mins?)

I reckon 5 hours door to door is realistic

Amsterdam is only slightly further away than Paris as the crow flies, going via Brussells is not a direct route, if there was a high speed line up the North Sea coast of France / Belgium / Nertherlands then London to Amsterdam in under 3 hours would be easily possible and therefore much more competitive than flying.

Not to mention taxiing at Heathrow which can add up to 20/30 minutes. Any rail journey which can offer centre to centre timings of 4 hours can be competitive with rail.

And the no frills and airline travel in general proves that people are prepared to transfer or travel greater distances to airports for lower prices. Therefore I feel they would also be prepared to travel by train where the travel time is longer provided the prices were cheap enough. As Eurostar was take much of the business market from London - Paris, it might be better to develop 2 different styles of ticketing. 1 Busines class and 1 economy via internet bookings only - your printout being the ticket ala Easyjet and Ryanair. maybe if the fare also included (say on a London to paris journey) all zone tickets for travelling in London and Paris (Travelcards etc).

sweek

February 19th, 2006, 04:54 PM

I'd happily sit on a train for 3.5 hours to get to Amsterdam

I could be at Central Station in under 4 hours, if I were to fly it would be a longer and more stressful journey:

Allow 1 hour to get to Heathrow
+2 hours before flight departure check-in time
+1h10m flight
+Transfer into Central Amsterdam (30 mins?)

I reckon 5 hours door to door is realistic

Amsterdam is only slightly further away than Paris as the crow flies, going via Brussells is not a direct route, if there was a high speed line up the North Sea coast of France / Belgium / Nertherlands then London to Amsterdam in under 3 hours would be easily possible and therefore much more competitive than flying.
2 hours before flight departure is never actually true anymore really. Most airlines go for 40 minutes when it comes to European flights. Granted, you better get there a bit earlier, but the same thing with trains really.
And as long as the UK isn't joining Schengen, you'll also have to add some time for passport control for the Eurostar as well.
You can fly from all five airports, including London City, so I'm pretty sure you will always have an airport pretty close by.
Train from the airport into Amsterdam (Central Station) is 20 mins.

I'm not at all against it, and think I might even take the train myself. i just don't think it will be profitable. And changing trains once in Brussels is not too bad, as long as there's not too much time in between the trains.

I'm not sure if Eurostar will be able to compete with the airline prices. I sure hope so though.
Maybe, instead of one train to Paris and one train terminating in Brussels per hour (the plans right now), they could extend the one going to Brussels on to London once every two hours. But that might become a problem again with security systems, since the Thalyses will have to be adjusted as well.

Some more information on the high speed line can be found here by the way:
http://www.highspeedalliance.nl/static/hsa/en/routes.html

nick_taylor

February 19th, 2006, 06:28 PM

Capzilla

February 19th, 2006, 06:46 PM

Don't forget it's quite a detour to go via Brussels, that Brussels - Antwerp is not a high speed line but just conventional tracks, and that there are tons of flights - both cheap no frill ones and traditional ones - from all the London airports to Amsterdam airport, and quite a few from/to Rotterdam airport as well.

It is a detour, but those conventional tracks will be upgraded: it's part of the contract. I know they are reluctant to do so south of the border (from me), but they'd better of else the HSA can sue for quite an amount as it might indeed make the difference between profitable services or not.

And as other have said, once you include the travel time (and cost!) from/to the London airports and the Dutch ones to your point of destination, rail will most definitely be a good alternative, especially as you could work on a laptop for 3hrs straight which you wouldn't be able to do by air.

sweek

February 19th, 2006, 09:16 PM

^^ Eurostar already competes successfully on the London-Paris and London-Brussels route (70% of all journeys are by Eurostar compared to 30% by place).

The time it takes to get on a Eurostar compared to boarding a plane is still far longer. 2hrs is still a probability on many routes.
It competes very successfully there, but the flight time between Brussels and London is about the same as between Amsterdam and London. The train travel times are not.

It is a detour, but those conventional tracks will be upgraded: it's part of the contract. I know they are reluctant to do so south of the border (from me), but they'd better of else the HSA can sue for quite an amount as it might indeed make the difference between profitable services or not.

And as other have said, once you include the travel time (and cost!) from/to the London airports and the Dutch ones to your point of destination, rail will most definitely be a good alternative, especially as you could work on a laptop for 3hrs straight which you wouldn't be able to do by air.
According to the Belgian SSC forums, they have planned to make a planning for the upgrade in 2017. That doesn't sound too promising...
Look at this thread for that:
http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=312358

This article (http://technology.guardian.co.uk/businesssense/story/0,,1694661,00.html) also compares travelling from London to Brussels,centre to centre, and says it takes about the same time when taking the Eurostar compared to flying VLM from London City.
If it's already a close call when it comes to Brussels, although that will of course become a bit faster when CTRL is finished. But to become faster when it comes to London - Amsterdam is not going to be easy.

We'll see what happens though. But because of the extra costs of customs facilities and train security systems that would have to be built on all three Dutch HSL stations, I can't see this happening.

nick_taylor

February 19th, 2006, 11:36 PM

But with the CTRL and other HSR improvements on the continent the door-door journey will be far quicker.

Also the article you post is for the Eurostar excluding the CTRL Phase II. Also London City Airport is indeed an accessible airport, but it has by far the worst connections of all of London's airports and lowest scope for growth.

Essex

February 20th, 2006, 10:33 AM

It competes very successfully there, but the flight time between Brussels and London is about the same as between Amsterdam and London. The train travel times are not.

According to the Belgian SSC forums, they have planned to make a planning for the upgrade in 2017. That doesn't sound too promising...
Look at this thread for that:
http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=312358

This article (http://technology.guardian.co.uk/businesssense/story/0,,1694661,00.html) also compares travelling from London to Brussels,centre to centre, and says it takes about the same time when taking the Eurostar compared to flying VLM from London City.
If it's already a close call when it comes to Brussels, although that will of course become a bit faster when CTRL is finished. But to become faster when it comes to London - Amsterdam is not going to be easy.

We'll see what happens though. But because of the extra costs of customs facilities and train security systems that would have to be built on all three Dutch HSL stations, I can't see this happening.

I'd assume leisure travellers to Amsterdam outweigh business travellers so ticket cost would be more important than timings as I'm sure most people will happily spend half an hour extra on a train for a £20 cheaper ticket. If a Eurostar ticket cost £100 plus then they might struggle a bit if they try to corner te business class market like they do with Paris.

Capzilla

February 20th, 2006, 10:36 AM

Bob

February 20th, 2006, 11:49 AM

From what people are saying it looks to me that Eurostar will be able to take some of the route traffic, but not as much as London - Brussels or London - Paris. It would be best if a direct link could be set up, even if it goes almost to Brussels. Stopping and changing is a hastle.

And why oh why oh why do passengers have to go through a full security check to get on Eurostar??????? Do people get their car taken appart to use the Channel Tunnel - no. Passport check, fine, but why is Eurostar the only train on the planet where x-rays of your luggage are needed.

sweek

February 20th, 2006, 06:25 PM

^^ Waiting for bus 69 isn't fun, but the DLR extension makes LCY quite accessible.

By the way, Eurostar is already (without CTRL and conventional trains from Brussels onward) competitive for most of Holland with any air route through Schiphol, which has major problems coping with queues at customs (which is why they stick to the show-up-90m-in-advance rule even for European flights). It's an excellent star-airport but horrible for hub-flights.
I really don't think it's that competitive, looking at the number of flights from Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Eindhoven airport, and since you have to wait 45 minutes (to check in and everything) in Brussels.
The prices usually can't compete with Easyjet to Gatwick / Stansted, unless they have a special offer. Train travel in the Netherlands is quite expensive really, compared to Belgium especially.
Check in times are chosen by flight companies, not by the airport. It can get a bit busy at Schiphol, but I've never really had to wait for a long time. When using automatic check-in it may take about 20 minutes to check in, go through security and get to your gate.
At Eindhoven or Rotterdam, it will be a lot less.

Does anyone know how much it would cost to implement ETCS2 on Eurostar trains?

dronkula

July 17th, 2006, 05:57 PM

Apparently today was another big milestone for this project.

Today - the Midland Mainline services moved out of their temp interim station and back to platforms 1-4 which is now their permanent home.

The interim platforms will now be converted to be the new home of the high speed domestic service to start in 2009.

International services are likely to start in Dec 2007 when the new national timetable kicks in (the station itself is likely to be finished much earlier - they just have to wait until then because of routing changes etc.).

Bob

September 12th, 2006, 01:56 PM

The CTRL is now complete and an extensive testing phase has begun. It will open in Autumn 2007.

However there is some worrying stuff about closing down Ashford. I don't understand this as it serves a huge catchment area, people who wouldn't want to travel into central London only to leave again and will hand the airlines an opportunity to start services from Gatwick.

Published: 12 September 2006

Score: 71 %

By Michael Harrison, Business Editor Eurostar is set to close down its operations at Ashford in Kent and delay the launch of services from its new station at Stratford, adjacent to the London Olympic site, for at least two years as part of ...

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1522974.ece

CharlieP

September 12th, 2006, 02:08 PM

However there is some worrying stuff about closing down Ashford. I don't understand this as it serves a huge catchment area, people who wouldn't want to travel into central London only to leave again and will hand the airlines an opportunity to start services from Gatwick.

That is a strange decision - with Waterloo International closing, travelling via Ashford would have been a better option for some people than transferring across London to St. Pancras...

nick_-_taylor

September 12th, 2006, 02:37 PM

Yeah I don't quite understand that. Might look good in cutting costs and improving journey time, but a far better solution would be the alternate between Ebbsfleet and Ashford.

elfabyanos

September 12th, 2006, 03:20 PM

That is a strange decision - with Waterloo International closing, travelling via Ashford would have been a better option for some people than transferring across London to St. Pancras...

It's not that strange a decision - for the majority of the year only about 5 people seem to get off those trains at ashford, while the rest of us are waiting for domestic services that are delayed because there aren't enough domestic platforms! Plus while eurostar insists on ridiculous prices everyone in kent is going to just trot down to the coast and get on a boat and save themselves most of the fare. Eurostar targets business customers, who live in the area for sure, but they all go to work in london for 8am for a last minute briefing before going to the meeting in Paris, or they go the night before after work and large it up in a hotel bar all night in paris - the direct demand is just not there, even for the locals.

DarJoLe

September 12th, 2006, 03:40 PM

It's been well known for some time Stratford International won't open for Eurostar services until 2010 as the area the station is in is a massive building site for Stratford City and the Olympic Park, obviously. 2010 is when the DLR extension to Stratford International will open, which will help get people away from the area securely and quickly.

CharlieP

September 12th, 2006, 04:02 PM

It's not that strange a decision - for the majority of the year only about 5 people seem to get off those trains at ashford, while the rest of us are waiting for domestic services that are delayed because there aren't enough domestic platforms! Plus while eurostar insists on ridiculous prices everyone in kent is going to just trot down to the coast and get on a boat and save themselves most of the fare. Eurostar targets business customers, who live in the area for sure, but they all go to work in london for 8am for a last minute briefing before going to the meeting in Paris, or they go the night before after work and large it up in a hotel bar all night in paris - the direct demand is just not there, even for the locals.

OK, all good points. I was just remembering (I think!) how improved connections to Ashford were promised to placate Eurostar customers south of London who were pissed off at the imminent closure of Waterloo...

sweek

September 12th, 2006, 05:18 PM

Plus while eurostar insists on ridiculous prices everyone in kent is going to just trot down to the coast and get on a boat and save themselves most of the fare.
Do you really think the prices are that riduculous? I'm able to book a flexible return from Brussels to London for 55 to 65 pounds usually!

Rational Plan

September 14th, 2006, 08:04 PM

I think it makes sense for them to concentrate their non Central London stop at Ebbsfleet. It is located near to the M25 abd therefore the London Suburban market, plus it will also serve a large number of people in Surrey, North Kent and Essex.

Those 6,000 long term car park spaces will prove attrative for people who do not want to lug their luggage through central London on the Tube. I suspect there might be a higer proportio of leisure travellors from Ebbsfleet.

elfabyanos

September 15th, 2006, 01:36 PM

Do you really think the prices are that riduculous? I'm able to book a flexible return from Brussels to London for 55 to 65 pounds usually!
Yeah, maybe not ridiculous, especially for business types. I was thinking more along the lines that as most of the business types go via london, that just leaves the tourist, who a lot of the time are happy to take forever on a boat and go by coach to wherever - that could save them half the fare (and they get the bonus of going slowly enough that photos of the countryside aren't blurred!)
Also, I seem to remember that whole spiel about great connections to ashford for eurostar too! Imagine a direct express from brighton to ashford turning round at redhill, calling at tonbridge and gatwick - it would take about an hour and 10 mintues. But since connex and SET have spent years having to pull trains into staions to let a eurostar get through, making the domestic service even later, all because the eurostars are worth more per path to railtrack/whoever operates the track, it hasn't left a spirit of cooperation I don't think. The TOC for kent will now spend the next few years getting their services back on target now they have the track back, rather than concentrate on anything else.

JDRS

November 14th, 2006, 06:02 PM

From BBC NEWS

High-speed rail link open in year

The final section of the Folkestone to London Channel Tunnel Rail Link is to open in a year's time - 14 years after the high-speed line opened in France.

Train operator Eurostar said its 186mph trains would start using the final section, from Ebbsfleet, in north Kent, to St Pancras, on 14 November 2007.

The opening of the final stage will cut journey times from London to Paris from 2hr 35min to 2hr 15min.

The first phase, from Folkestone to Ebbsfleet, opened in September 2003.

"This move will be the most significant event in Eurostar's history since we started running passenger services 12 years ago today," said chief executive Richard Brown.

"It will mark the start of a new era in travel between the UK and mainland Europe, making high-speed rail an even faster, more reliable and less environmentally damaging alternative to flying."

Eurostar trains will continue running into Waterloo until 13 November 2007.

Waterloo's international terminal will then be handed back to the government, which has promised to use the platforms to reduce congestion for domestic commuter trains.

Journey time

Eurostar is also to run services from £100m Ebbsfleet station to Paris and Brussels, but is to cut the services it currently runs from Ashford in Kent.

The opening of the Ebbsfleet to St Pancras section will also cut the journey time from London to Brussels, from 2hr 15min to 1hr 51 min.

High-speed domestic services will start using the new section from 2009.

The Channel Tunnel Rail Link is also now being rebranded as High Speed 1, or HS1.

Its completion will finally put the UK on a par with France and Belgium.

The French had their high-speed rail link ready in 1993 - a year before the Channel Tunnel opened, while the Belgian high-speed link was completed in 1997.

Mr Brown said St Pancras International station would be "stunning", with connections that would make Eurostar accessible to millions of new customers across the UK.

"We will be competing head-on with regional airports, with comparable city centre-to-city centre journey times," he said.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42312000/gif/_42312454_london_rail_links_203.gif

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42077000/jpg/_42077850_ebbsfleet_new_203.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------------

So are they stopping the trains at Ashford still? Good to hear that Waterloo will still be used for domestic rail.

Zim Flyer

November 14th, 2006, 06:17 PM

excellent stuff.

Now this is a national project that should be celebrated, but I bet the national media will give it 60 seconds on the news when it happens, where as in most countries it would be cause for a celebration.

I hope the Queen opens it, if she does I will be very tempted to come down to London to see it.

Mauritz

November 15th, 2006, 01:46 AM

This video has some nice views:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3662494.stm

DarJoLe

November 15th, 2006, 12:36 PM

Now this is a national project that should be celebrated

Most people I've spoken to about this wonder why so much money has been spent on saving 20 minutes on a train journey, and wonder why it took 14 years after the French version to build.

CharlieP

November 15th, 2006, 01:11 PM

Most people I've spoken to about this wonder why so much money has been spent on saving 20 minutes on a train journey, and wonder why it took 14 years after the French version to build.

It's not just to save 20 minutes on the journey from London to Paris (and that's just the saving from CTRL2), it's also to provide a new route for domestic high-speed services and to ease congestion on South London routes - Eurostar is currently taking paths that could be used by commuter services...

DarJoLe

November 15th, 2006, 01:16 PM

Try telling that to the general public.

LocksRocks

November 15th, 2006, 01:17 PM

Most people I've spoken to about this wonder why so much money has been spent on saving 20 minutes on a train journey, and wonder why it took 14 years after the French version to build.

It's not just the time saving it's the capacity, high speed commuter trains will use the line in kent.
Investing in new lines cost money, it will be worth it in the long term rather than mending and making do with the existing lines.

The French planned to build a line north of Paris to Lillie and on to Belgium to link up with high speed routes into Holland and Germany. This was planned probably before the channel tunnel.

The route in France was a lot easier to plan than that in the UK, with it's masses of tunnels and nimbys.

Hopefully with the skills leant on the UK side, the high speed network will be continued north.

elfabyanos

November 16th, 2006, 10:03 AM

It's true that the industry as a whole has done very well with the knowledge gained from this project - especially the budget-keeping.

Bob

November 16th, 2006, 05:14 PM

Bob

November 16th, 2006, 05:27 PM

Try telling that to the general public.Why bother? Millions are experiencing the benefits every year already. In France 'the public' will no doubt be moaning about how much the bloody government spends of their taxes on their railways. And before you say "no Bob the French understand that an integrated transport system is needed to tackle our urban environment issues" I say "utter shite" - they hate their taxes been spent too and would much rather drive at 300kmph to London rather than catch the train. Moaners are everywhere, buoyed by massive negative spin in the press. If you listen to, join in or take on board their soul destroying complaining is entirely up to each person.

elfabyanos

November 17th, 2006, 12:02 PM

Well said!

muddycoffee

November 17th, 2006, 01:31 PM

Most people I've spoken to about this wonder why so much money has been spent on saving 20 minutes on a train journey, and wonder why it took 14 years after the French version to build.

I think that you might be missing the point by stating "A train journey". It will be 20 minutes saved on millions of train journeys. And that adds up to a lot of time saved.
Also it is interesting to compare this new route and its difficulties in being built with the new high speed routes of the "AVE" network in Spain.

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=374584&page=11

Which, like France is a much less densely populated place than the south east of England. One look at the link shows many miles of new track sweeping through deserted bare wilderness.

DarJoLe

November 17th, 2006, 02:24 PM

I didn't say I was against it, I'm all for it, I'm just conveying the word on the street.

People seem to have the opinion why build a new railway line to the Channel Tunnel when we have an entire country wide network falling into complete anarchy.

Bob

November 17th, 2006, 04:28 PM

an entire country wide network falling into complete anarchyI think we live in different countries. Post Hatfield was chaos, today is average, but most of all frustrating that we are missing huge opportunities.

Is the 'word on the street' the daily mail, or evening standard cos if it is it really doesn't need to be conveyed as it's forced into our faces morning, noon and night. Almost unanimously people I have spoken to who have used Eurostar think it's great.

Jaeger

November 17th, 2006, 06:08 PM

The further from London you go, the more support there is for high speed rail links. Go to the North or Scotland and you will see much greater levels of support.

The sad fact is, it is now easier to get to parts of Europe from London, than it is to get to some northern and scottish cities.

muddycoffee

November 17th, 2006, 07:14 PM

The further from London you go, the more support there is for high speed rail links.
Agreed,
Also it is quite gauling for people in the regions when, our transport schemes are continually turned down by the government, meanwhile in the big smoke, the already enormous tube / tram / rail systems of London are further expanded.

It seems as if ,
London gets the olympics and the rest of the country can whistle!

sweek

November 18th, 2006, 02:25 AM

london lad

November 18th, 2006, 02:35 AM

Agreed,
Also it is quite gauling for people in the regions when, our transport schemes are continually turned down by the government, meanwhile in the big smoke, the already enormous tube / tram / rail systems of London are further expanded.

It seems as if ,
London gets the olympics and the rest of the country can whistle!

Why does anyone north of London constantly moan about London getting everything- We dont. Xrail has been on the drawing board for decades, the tubes & railways had been run down for decades, like the rest of the national rail network. Its been a general lack of investment from various governments across the whole country for a long time. We are paying for most of the improvements through higher fares & TFL is borrowing most of the money it is using to invest in London's transport network. London is after all an urban connubation of over 8million & the main engine for UK growth which subsidises the rest of country & if it grinds to a halt the whole country suffers.

Back to the the topic- I hope they use the momentum of the CTRL as an impetus to extending the high speed network further north. The government report on UK transport should be out soon so hopefully it will get the ball rolling.

Jaeger

November 18th, 2006, 05:44 PM

Well quite a few parts of mainland Europe are closer to London than certain parts of Scotland, so it's not all that weird.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,363585,00.jpg

5 hrs to Lyon

5 hrs to Glasgow

http://www.visitscotland.com/sitewide/travelfrom_restofbritain

4 hrs 40 minutes to Frankfurt.

4 hrs 30 minutes to Strasbourg

3 hrs 30 minutes to Amsterdam

2 hrs 15 minutes to Paris

2 hrs 45 minutes to Newcastle.

There's no slow down for the Channel Tunnel on Domestic Services, and the British Services are direct, you have to change trains for a lot of the above journeys, and there still much faster.

I think you'll find the new CTRL is faster which has reduced times, plus once you get in to Europe, the railways are in a different league to our sad north/south link.

sweek

November 18th, 2006, 07:32 PM

... how is that reply to my comment?
I was simply pointing out that Brussels is only 200 miles away from London, Paris 215 miles, Amsterdam only 220.
Glasgow and Edinburgh however are around 350 miles away from London as the crow flies. It's no wonder that parts of continental Europe have faster services to London then.

Jonesy55

November 18th, 2006, 07:38 PM

London is after all an urban connubation of over 8million & the main engine for UK growth which subsidises the rest of country & if it grinds to a halt the whole country suffers.

I hate this argument being used to justify nowhere else getting proper transport services. Have you ever thought that if we invested in our other cities, they too would be engines for growth and wouldn't have to be subsidised by London? London and the SE have about 25% of the population and so should get about 25% of the transport spending.

Jaeger

November 18th, 2006, 09:39 PM

london lad

November 19th, 2006, 01:17 AM

I hate this argument being used to justify nowhere else getting proper transport services. Have you ever thought that if we invested in our other cities, they too would be engines for growth and wouldn't have to be subsidised by London? London and the SE have about 25% of the population and so should get about 25% of the transport spending.

25% yet contribute well over 25% of the country's wealth.Your misguided arguement is also brought up many times by anyone not from London- London is one of 4 World cities not some regional city- It is the seat of Government & commerce & has been for centuries & is closer to the continent than any other UK city with communication & transport links to the rest of the world.Its is the gateway to the UK- Due to a combination fo these factors London has grown & why it need good transport connections. For example is the worlds largest international finance capital & therefore this massive pool of resourceswhich attracts others to it. You cant just transplant that to Birmingham/Manchest/Liverpool- If London suffers (and bad transport infrastucture is always near the top of the list from the business community)the large multinationals & banks will not up sticks to Birmingham(even if it had a brand spanking new metro,free busses & maglev trains runnig everywhere) they will move to Frankfurt or Paris & in which case the whole UK suffers. Do you not understand how the worlds economy works??

A perfect example of this is the CTRL- It connects the UK capital with the French Capital in under 3hrs & now increasing the rest of Europe mainly due to A) Geography (London being closer to mainland Europe) & B) Importance- London is one of Europes most important cities for Business,culture etc.

Transport issues is countrywide- Its not Londons fault if other regions cant get there acts together -As I mentioned its Londoners on the whole who are paying for improvements to its transport infrastucture. Instead of moaning about London why dont you try & persuade your local MP's to do something about it

Fusionist

November 19th, 2006, 04:30 AM

London and the SE have about 25% of the population and so should get about 25% of the transport spending.

That arguments doesn't always hold good. The world ( fortunatey or unfortunately ) is dictated by market economy and investment has to be done accordingly. Investing 25% of transportation spending in the provincial regions might not bring back the revenue/benefit the same investment in the London region might produce. In short its about getting the best result for the amount of money you invest, and unfortunately for the rest of England in most cases it has to be London. But if you look at the bigger picture, its good for the overall economy of the nation which is to everyones benefit.

sweek

November 19th, 2006, 02:34 PM

So how far is Lyon, which takes the same time to get to from London, as Glasgow does.
It's 450 miles, thus further. But just because it's in another country doesn't mean it should take longer to get to. Why think of it that nationally instead of just ignoring the country borders?

ChrisH

November 19th, 2006, 02:37 PM

Is there any likelihood that there could be Le Shuttle trains running from Ebbsfleet to Calais, once the new line and stations have opened? If the trains could run at full speed, it would take most of the traffic off the M20!

CharlieP

November 19th, 2006, 03:31 PM

Full speed for Le Shuttle trains isn't all that quick - maybe 120-150km/h?

elfabyanos

November 20th, 2006, 12:11 PM

Yeah they're not quick enough for the ctrl.

Jaeger

November 20th, 2006, 02:07 PM

It's 450 miles, thus further. But just because it's in another country doesn't mean it should take longer to get to. Why think of it that nationally instead of just ignoring the country borders?

It's 456 miles, just went on to a European City to City Distance Website and put London to Lyon in. However that is the straightest route, and does not take in to consideration that you have to change trains at Paris, as there is no direct train. If you use the same site to calculate the distance between London and Glasgow it comes up with 346 miles.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distanceresult.html?p1=333&p2=136

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distanceresult.html?p1=136&p2=90

So despite being a direct train (you have to change at Paris for the Lyon Train), despite being 110 miles shorter distance and despite not
having to slow down to go through the Channel Tunnel, if you set off from London to Lyon or London to Glasgow you would arrive at each city at the same time.

sarflonlad

November 20th, 2006, 08:32 PM

eomer

November 22nd, 2006, 09:21 PM

60% of the Paris / London traffic now uses Eurostar rather than flying. This is quicker, better for the environment and frees up take off slots at our crowded airports.

That's a bit logical: if you have a meeting in the City or at Canary Wharf, it takes more than 2 hours to travel from Paris to CDG and from Heathrow to London. Of course, it's possible to use London City Airport but flights are very expensive.

I hope that in the futur, new HSR will be build from King's X to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Scotland: transfers will be very easy between St Pancras (E*) and King's Cross. I don't know if it will be possible to have a combinated ticket E*/Hogwarts Express...

Capzilla

November 23rd, 2006, 06:11 AM

^^ LCY isn't really all that expensive, especially not when you compare to cheap flights to Stansted and add the £24 for a return ticket on the *cough* express.

sweek

November 23rd, 2006, 07:28 PM

I don't really mind LCY being more expensive, it's supposed to be there for business travelers to Canary Wharf who can actually afford these prices. One of its most frequent routes is to Brussels actually, they might focus on some other cities when the Eurostar will be faster.

Jonesy55

November 24th, 2006, 12:26 AM

That arguments doesn't always hold good. The world ( fortunatey or unfortunately ) is dictated by market economy and investment has to be done accordingly. Investing 25% of transportation spending in the provincial regions might not bring back the revenue/benefit the same investment in the London region might produce. In short its about getting the best result for the amount of money you invest, and unfortunately for the rest of England in most cases it has to be London. But if you look at the bigger picture, its good for the overall economy of the nation which is to everyones benefit.

The cost benefit analyses don't always show London to be the best option for investment though. Land is much more expensve in London and projects are far more complicated because of the already built up infrastructure. The argument 'everyone benefits if London does well' is fine up to a point but i'm sure most people elsewhere would rather see investment in infrastructure and jobs created in their own communities rather than wait for handouts paid for by income tax on city bonuses.

By putting all our economic eggs in one basket we end up with one crowded, environmentally degraded part of the country with poor public services as only city whizzkids can afford to bring up their families in reasonable comfort and other areas of the country blighted by unemployment, brain drain and with GDP per capita lower than some parts of former communist countries. It is not a recipe for a healthy nation.

At London Lad, i'm perfectly well aware how the economy works, I studied economics at university thank you. Just as London is competing with Paris, New York and Frankfurt in some sectors (by no means all, many businesses outside the global finance sector would be more likely to relocate to Birmingham or Manchester), Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Leeds etc also have to compete internationally for investment. The difference is that while London's transport infrastructure is not perfect, compared to its peer cities it is at least competitive. Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and so on though are light years behind Munich, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Lyon, Hamburg and many others that they have to compete with. They don't even have fully functioning metro systems or any HSR links and central government won't allow them to run their own buses, only London is given this privilege.

This has nothing to do with cities 'not getting their acts together', if central government won't fund HSR, metros or give powers over buses or powerful elected city assemblies there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.

Many regional cities are doing well considering the obstacles put in their way and the poor state of transport but just as London needs to compete internationally, so does everywhere else.

At Sarflonlad, I know London needs transport investment but this mindset that because London is the biggest place everywhere else should wait until London is perfect and in the meantime just wait for the benefits to filter out to us is ridiculous. London is by no means the only place where people struggle to board rush hour trains. It happens to people on my route into Birmingham, by the time I get to Telford, the two (yes, two) carriage train is full to capacity both seating and standing and often people have to shove to get on, sometimes they don't. In the couple of years i've been taking this train i've seen several people need medical attention due to overcrowding. Of course we can't have ten quid to buy some second hand carriages from India though because London has to have £50bn+ for crossrail, javelin trains, jubilee line extension, CTRL, WCML upgrade, Croydon trams etc etc ad nauseum.

elfabyanos

November 24th, 2006, 09:50 AM

Jonesy - I agree with most of what what you're saying, but again I don't believe it can be begrudged of london - london doesn't have any special powers to get anything done that hasn't been battled for tooth and nail by ken livingstone, if it wasn't for him none of the london infrastructure improvements would be taking place except the ctrl. Power needs to be devolved from whitehall to the regions, in the same way london has wrought power from whitehall. This, as you will certainly know from your education, can only be positive for the regional economies in a myriad of financial, infrastructural and sociological ways.
Also, I know that the south east isn't the only place where there is overcrowding, but in the example you posted you can't add carriages to two-car multiple units for much less money than buying whole new trains. That would akin to chopping a car in half to turn it into a limosine.

sarflonlad

November 25th, 2006, 03:32 PM

At Sarflonlad, I know London needs transport investment but this mindset that because London is the biggest place everywhere else should wait until London is perfect and in the meantime just wait for the benefits to filter out to us is ridiculous. London is by no means the only place where people struggle to board rush hour trains. It happens to people on my route into Birmingham, by the time I get to Telford, the two (yes, two) carriage train is full to capacity both seating and standing and often people have to shove to get on, sometimes they don't. In the couple of years i've been taking this train i've seen several people need medical attention due to overcrowding. Of course we can't have ten quid to buy some second hand carriages from India though because London has to have £50bn+ for crossrail, javelin trains, jubilee line extension, CTRL, WCML upgrade, Croydon trams etc etc ad nauseum.

I'm awfully sorry. You have to shove to get on? To get on the second or third *8* carriage train that passes through my station at 8.20am in the morning where I live would be a lucky thing. There is no shoving room - I HAVE to wait for the next one. Come to Clapham Junction during the rush hour - Britains busiest railway station - people literally scream at each other insisting that those who have been standing up in cramped conditions can and WILL make more room for those of us waiting on the platform. My trains have also recently had seats ripped out of them to make more standing/shoving room and now they are planning to ditch toilets.

I also happen to believe that everywhere should be entitled to transport invesment. I'm all for every major UK city getting a tube or light rail system. But I hate moaners like you who think, 'no hang on, wait a minute, lets hold back London's plans (again) because people in the provinces don't want to ride buses, they want shiny new trams that fail to make substantial profit or meet passenger number expectations'. - you can't just siphone money away that easily.

New lines in London like the Jubilee went above expectations and hence recently they had to add an extra carriage to all trains years before they planned to do so. The DLR has consistently required less subsidy to run itself year on year - soon it will be completely self sufficient - this is why it keeps getting extended. The Croydon Tram carries more passengers per mile than any other system in the UK despite not being the largest.

What's your issue with investment in 'Javelin' Trains? We spend all that money on CTRL2 and you think we shouldn't utilise it for our own UK regional high speed services in between Eurostar services? Should we wait until Leicester has a under used monorail system before we proceed with projects (planned donkeys ago) in London?

Transport in London offers greater returns to both region and the country. Either accept that and support new investment or come live here for a while and understand how the region functions before you critique.

Prestonian

November 25th, 2006, 10:35 PM

I love how Londoners never seem to make the connection between appalling overcrowding in their metropolis and a lack of other competitive locations in the UK to relieve the burden!

For as long as we take the London centric approach to development in this country the problems of London will get worse (no matter how many multi-billion pound transport upgrades there are). The argument that investment that doesn't go to London will go abroad may partly be true, however, might it not be sensible to see if you can create some domestic rivals??? Already the 'provincial' (>() cities have much to offer, they just need a little more. And, perhaps, its about time they were given an 'edge' over London to spur on their development (Maglev please!).

I won't deny that London generates a large amount of tax revenue for the country but, I would argue, it also has a disproportionate say in how it is spent too. I don't blame the city, or the people of the city, its just a fact the UK politics and descision making centres around London to the detriment of elsewhere. Look at the powers of the GLA and try to find anything that comes close in the rest of the country. There is no body, or figurehead that can lobby for regional cities as Ken can for London. This is a huge flaw in our political system. Where is the scope for cities to take independent action too?

How about this for a doomsday hypothesis. London grows and grows and grows, gets busier and busier and busier, it consumes an ever greater share of British resources, the required investment in transport gets larger and larger until it is prohibitive, business and talent begins to leave in search of a better quality of life. Revenues dwindle, the investment required becomes unrealistic. Firms look for places to relocate, glance at our cash strapped, under-developed regions and run a mile straight over the atlantic or over the channel. How different it might have been had they had a British alternative all along.

So yes, it is important that we maintain London as an attractive place to do business, but not at the expense of the rest of the country. London is expensive to maintain, why not spend it elsewhere and get better value for money? Help Brum, Manc, Liverpool, Edinburgh become equally huge tax revenue generators, relieve some of the population growth pressures and improve your own lives. Infact, no, I don't mean spend it 'elsewhere' I mean spend it, as much as possible, 'as well as'. I don't think it is at all fair to claim the London need is greater or more important, I think it is at best only as 'needy' as everywhere else. Besides, if its so bloody awful down there, wouldn't you like to have the oppurtunity of choosing between a selection of successful British cities?

Think On!

One thing I am sure we can all agree on is that Transport in this country generally has been overlooked as a major political issue for far far too long.

elfabyanos

November 26th, 2006, 11:59 AM

^^ I agree very much.

I think there is an element to the thread of people from the regions not knowing London's commuter hell, and Londoners not knowing the Region's commuter hell. This smacks of divide and conquer without the thrid party aggressor to do the dividing - we're doing it ourselves! It is absolutely necessary for the future growth of the whole country to get at least some transport improvemenents accross the whole country. Some are underway - as I understand Virgin and it's associated projects have managed to increase it's market share of passengers on it's corridor - but more needs to be done.

I think London should get all the projects it is getting - Xrail, ELL, Thameslink 2000, Ctrl DS, but I also think that each major city should be having at least one major project such as these - some are having tram extensions but these are not good enough for mid distance commuting, and neither are buses. I certainly do not beleive any cash should be diverted away from the regions to pay for London, especially as I think that there is a good enough stand alone business case for the regional projects - if those business cases exist the governement can back them with less political risk, even more so in the age of ppp investment.

In addition to city specific investments, to properly reduce stress on the capital, there needs to be adequate efficient links between the cities. I believe an HSR to Birmingahm and Manchester linked to the ctrl would put those cities on the European political map - the boost to their economies over time would be tremendous, not to mention providing alternatives to the capital for foreign companies to invest in.

Jonesy55

November 26th, 2006, 12:16 PM

I'm awfully sorry. You have to shove to get on? To get on the second or third *8* carriage train that passes through my station at 8.20am in the morning where I live would be a lucky thing. There is no shoving room - I HAVE to wait for the next one. Come to Clapham Junction during the rush hour - Britains busiest railway station - people literally scream at each other insisting that those who have been standing up in cramped conditions can and WILL make more room for those of us waiting on the platform. My trains have also recently had seats ripped out of them to make more standing/shoving room and now they are planning to ditch toilets.

I passed through CJ a few weeks ago at 17:30 on a Friday evening on my way from Waterloo to Twickenham, the train was busy but there was still plenty of room and it certainly wasn't any busier than any of the trains I see in Birmingham New Street every day.

The difference is that if you can't get on a train into London at CJ, another will be along in 2 minutes, the people left stranded by my train at Telford station on Friday would have had to wait at least 30 mins for the next one.

Your claim that investment in London automatically makes better returns is interesting but i'd like to see the evidence, schemes like the Manchester Metrolink expansion were found to have excellent Cost-Benefit ratios even after the DfTs 'optimism bias' has been factored in but they still haven't been built 10 years or more after being proposed.

Bob

November 26th, 2006, 01:24 PM

All the serious public transport projects across the country have good benefit:cost ratios. Be that a north-south rail line or a tram in Leeds. Crossrail has a ratio of over 3:1. Yet none are being built. If the Government needed to find an extra 10 or 20 billion a year I would understand it, but to deliver all the projects together would add at most 3 billion a year if entirely funded by the public purse. That isn't even the case as most are public private partnerships. What it comes down to is the government failing to find a couple of billion a year extra for tranpsort out of a budget of £550bn. It beggars belief.

sarflonlad

November 26th, 2006, 02:37 PM

I passed through CJ a few weeks ago at 17:30 on a Friday evening on my way from Waterloo to Twickenham, the train was busy but there was still plenty of room and it certainly wasn't any busier than any of the trains I see in Birmingham New Street every day.

The difference is that if you can't get on a train into London at CJ, another will be along in 2 minutes, the people left stranded by my train at Telford station on Friday would have had to wait at least 30 mins for the next one.

Your claim that investment in London automatically makes better returns is interesting but i'd like to see the evidence, schemes like the Manchester Metrolink expansion were found to have excellent Cost-Benefit ratios even after the DfTs 'optimism bias' has been factored in but they still haven't been built 10 years or more after being proposed.

The evening rush hour is not the morning rush hour. Most people start work around the same time - finishing work is staggered hence trains are less crowded. I accept it would be shame to miss your train if you lived in Telford and needed to get to Birmingham. But populated places closer to London like Hampton Court or Tolworth only get a train every 30 mins also. The example of CJ is relevant because it's so close to central london that you might wonder why people don't just take a bus or car - it would probably be more than feasible in any other UK city - but there just isn't the room on the road. The city would most probably collapse overnight if half of all commuters switched to cars.

What would you like to see then in terms of investment in transport in this country? Shall we build a Birmingham crossrail? What do you anticipate the frequency of the service would be - 1 every few minutes with a 12 carriage service? Where will it serve? The airport, the Bullring, New Street? What business and opportunities do you think it will attract? I ask - because whilst I'm not in anyway against investing outside of London (infact I would really like to see it) - I want to know why you have such a problem with the existing little proposed investment London gets in its projects that will serve international transport hubs, 2 global financial centres, the largest concentration of commercial enterprises on the planet and relieve some of the most congested transport gateways on earth. Lets consider things in context shall we.

BenL

November 26th, 2006, 03:48 PM

Jonesy55

November 26th, 2006, 04:30 PM

The evening rush hour is not the morning rush hour. Most people start work around the same time - finishing work is staggered hence trains are less crowded. I accept it would be shame to miss your train if you lived in Telford and needed to get to Birmingham. But populated places closer to London like Hampton Court or Tolworth only get a train every 30 mins also. The example of CJ is relevant because it's so close to central london that you might wonder why people don't just take a bus or car - it would probably be more than feasible in any other UK city - but there just isn't the room on the road. The city would most probably collapse overnight if half of all commuters switched to cars.

What would you like to see then in terms of investment in transport in this country? Shall we build a Birmingham crossrail? What do you anticipate the frequency of the service would be - 1 every few minutes with a 12 carriage service? Where will it serve? The airport, the Bullring, New Street? What business and opportunities do you think it will attract? I ask - because whilst I'm not in anyway against investing outside of London (infact I would really like to see it) - I want to know why you have such a problem with the existing little proposed investment London gets in its projects that will serve international transport hubs, 2 global financial centres, the largest concentration of commercial enterprises on the planet and relieve some of the most congested transport gateways on earth. Lets consider things in context shall we.

Maybe I was being a little harsh, i'm not against more transport investment in London as such, i'm just annoyed by the way there doesn't seem to be a level playing field. London is able to raise it's own funds, control its own buses and has a powerful assembly and mayor to speak with one voice for the whole city. Everywhere else has small fragmented councils and have to rely on the whims of central government far more.

It is still true though that London is probably less far behind it's peer cities like NYC, Paris and Tokyo than the provincial cities are behind their competitors like Munich, Barcelona, Lyon and Amsterdam.

As for specific projects, I would want to see national HSR to improve inter-uk links and links between provincial UK and the near continent, cities of a decent size should at least have some form of comprehensive metro system. I accept that undergrounds are probably not feasible in most places but cheaper overground commuter light rail would be.

The reason some schemes appear underused is that it's no good having one or two lines, you need a proper network like London has. If I can only get to 10% of the places I need to go in the city using good quality public transport and need a car to get everywhere else, i'm not going to use the metro for that 1 journey in 10 and leave the car at home. If I can get pretty much everywhere like in London, I'm far more likely not to bother with a car at all.

London may have the largest concentration of commercial enterprises on earth but that is in no small part because of the great infrastructure links that it already has. To deny other cities the chance to grow their economies because they don't yet have this concentration is somewhat perverse. Birmingham or Manchester are not likely to rival London as a finance centre (although if the Isle of Man and Bermuda can take a slice of the market, i'm sure there is potential for growth here) but neither are many cities around the world, it doesn't mean that infrastructure won't help development and shouldn't be approved. It isn't just financiers who use the public transport in London, it's used by students, tourists, nurses, factory workers, shop assistants, cleaners etc and would be anywhere else.

I appreciate that we should look at things in context but you can hardly say that heathrow T5, crossrail, thameslink renewal, olympics related investment, CTRL etc represent trifling amounts of money especially when added to the comprehensive legacy London already has from 150 years of transport projects.

muddycoffee

November 26th, 2006, 06:42 PM

But I hate the way no one who has lived in London thinks elsewhere should get transport money just as much. I challenge you to drive into London (with over 70% of its population using public transport anyway), find a place to park and then weight up the costs and time you spent going however X miles. Do the same in any other British city (which have no where near as many commuting) and you'll find it will be:

- cheaper
- quicker

I have been often driving to London and doing work there since 1991, and I still regularly drive there, and believe me, the traffic problems you have are no different to those in some of the other cites. My city, Sheffield, regularly wins the dubious prize of achiving the slowest speed commuter traffic in UK. With the average rush hour speed down at 3 or 4mph. Also our city's roads are by far the worse in the country, lined with potholes and deep gouges. It is estimated that it would take 30 years to bring all our tarmac up to standard. Some of our roads have so many patches the surface looks like a ploughed field.

The reason that our roads are so bad is basically because of decades of neglect, the local Traditionally Labour council having its budget fiercely capped during the Tory government years, and no extra money available to make up the shortfall.
And by the way, petrol is cheaper in London, we have no busses after 11pm and we are the fourth biggest city in England.

sarflonlad

November 26th, 2006, 08:22 PM

I have been often driving to London and doing work there since 1991, and I still regularly drive there, and believe me, the traffic problems you have are no different to those in some of the other cites. My city, Sheffield, regularly wins the dubious prize of achiving the slowest speed commuter traffic in UK. With the average rush hour speed down at 3 or 4mph. Also our city's roads are by far the worse in the country, lined with potholes and deep gouges. It is estimated that it would take 30 years to bring all our tarmac up to standard. Some of our roads have so many patches the surface looks like a ploughed field.

The reason that our roads are so bad is basically because of decades of neglect, the local Traditionally Labour council having its budget fiercely capped during the Tory government years, and no extra money available to make up the shortfall.
And by the way, petrol is cheaper in London, we have no busses after 11pm and we are the fourth biggest city in England.

You don't pay to drive in to the city centre of sheffield. However I can't objectively compare costs of parking and availability of spaces. London traffic isn't simply radial either - that's why we have the M25 and north/south circulars. Every single London town centre has traffic issues. Sheffield is a radial commuter city as far as I know.

That's fucking awful re your night buses - there are smaller cities that have a night bus service till at least 4am.

@Jonesy55 - it would fantastic if every region could raise it's own money and indeed be given more powers (including London) to build projects without the long and costly UK central government approval process. The North East was offered the powers London has - voters turned it down because they didn't want to pay for it. Does Labour want more egg on its face? I don't think we will be seeing more votes on regional assemblies just yet (unfortunately).

Thread has gone a bit off topic now... be great if someone could relate this to CTRL... :banana:

Prestonian

November 26th, 2006, 09:19 PM

Voters turned down the NE assembly because it didn't offer anything extra apart from another place to talk about all the things we can't afford to do. They did the right thing by sending them back to the drawing board to come up with something better.

muddycoffee

November 27th, 2006, 02:39 PM

Thanks Sarflonlad,
I am sure you are right about parking etc..

With respect to the CTRL ( back on thread ) I look forward to the day when I can travel from my door, to the continent via, Local Bus, Master Cutler Train, and then CTRL. I would be fascinated to report the time from Sheffield To Brussels together with the cost and see how it compares to an equivalent journey using air travel.

My bet, and sincere hope, is that it would be faster and more pleasent. I don't know about the cost though..

Ciudad Bristol

November 29th, 2006, 03:50 PM

The quickest I've done my house to Brussels midi station:

FLYING:

Walk to Station = 5 mins

Tube/DLR London City Airport = 20 mins

Arrival before flight for check in = 30 mins

VLM Flight to Brussels leaving on time = 60 mins

Out of plane and through passport control = 20 mins

Train to Brussels midi = 20 mins

Total time: 2 hr 35 min.

EUROSTAR:

Walk to Station = 5 mins

Tube to Waterloo = 15 mins

Checkin = 45 min

Quickest Eurostar to Brussels = 2hr 15mins

Total: 3hr 20 mins

The 24 min gain due to Highspeed 1 will be absorbed by the extra travelling time to St Pancras from my place.

I'll still usually take the train though as it is more environmentally freindly.

muddycoffee

December 10th, 2006, 11:32 PM

Does anyone on here know what the distance between London and paris will be when the High Speed track is complete?

I am writing a report about transport emmissions, and It would help to have the length of the High Speed journey.

Thanks..

Manuel

December 12th, 2006, 12:55 PM

Bob

January 2nd, 2007, 07:15 PM

Some pics of St. Pancras as the wraps come off! Looking good and remarkably like the renders.

The northern tube hall is now under construction just to the west of the Kings Cross trainshed. The hotel extension to the old Midland Grand is not. Anyone know when Marriot will start work there? A Eurostar has been pulled along phase II into St. Pancras, but the lecky switch hasn't yet been flipped.

I also read that at the other end of the line to Brussels the Belgians have finished a flyover which will enable Eurostar to avoid the congested approach to the city. It'll be 4 mins quicker!

http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/7/1/2/f_RIMG0204i_b2d8m_5295abfe.jpg

http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/7/1/2/f_RIMG0208i_b2d8m_e54e61a2.jpg

http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/7/1/2/f_RIMG0209i_b2d8m_8003c1c0.jpg

http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/7/1/2/f_RIMG0210i_b2d8m_5f14e896.jpg

http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/7/1/2/f_RIMG0216i_b2d8m_14e1557d.jpg

http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/7/1/2/f_RIMG0218i_b2d8m_a4386446.jpg
Computer generated image;
http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/7/1/2/f_RIMG0220i_b2d8m_92348233.jpg

gothicform

January 2nd, 2007, 08:26 PM

very nice bob. did you take those pics? can i use some for skyscrapernews?

Bob

January 2nd, 2007, 10:47 PM

very nice bob. did you take those pics? can i use some for skyscrapernews?
yes I did, today, course you can!

Tubeman

January 3rd, 2007, 02:47 AM

The trainshed roof is magnificent. What better way to welcome our continental visitors to London? :)

CharlieP

January 3rd, 2007, 01:13 PM

The trainshed roof is magnificent. What better way to welcome our continental visitors to London? :)

I have some suggestions, but they might be considered lewd...

Zim Flyer

January 3rd, 2007, 05:20 PM

Thanks for the pictures Bob, they really are superb.

I know I'm always going on about this but in other countries there would be some great national count down to this grand national project and everyone would be feeling proud, instead it's seems to be happening with a whisper. We need the media to get the message out that there are some good things happening in the UK.

Monkey

January 3rd, 2007, 09:29 PM

The trainshed roof is magnificent. What better way to welcome our continental visitors to London? :)St Pancras is certainly a magnificent station - perhaps the grandest in the world - but I always liked the way visitors from France arrived at a station named after one of their greatest defeats. It's a shame we cannot combine the splendid architecture of St Pancras with the name of Waterloo. ;)

ChrisH

January 3rd, 2007, 11:56 PM

St Pancras is certainly a magnificent station - perhaps the grandest in the world - but I always liked the way visitors from France arrived at a station named after one of their greatest defeats. It's a shame we cannot combine the splendid architecture of St Pancras with the name of Waterloo. ;)

Perhaps it could be renamed London Trafalgar Station? ;) ;)

potto

January 4th, 2007, 08:50 PM

Visited the restored German Gymanasium next to the St Pancras extension bit and was quite interesting, apparantly it was built and used by the people who were the fore fathers of the movement that eventually led to the IOC and the Olympic Games. So there will be a link when people arrive there for the Olympics and head off to Stratford.

It also had this amazing wooden roof that had been replicated in Kings Cross or the other way around but it is all iron in Kings Cross now

potto

January 4th, 2007, 10:15 PM

To show the back of the Northern Hotel that someone mentioned, massive crane thing presumably for lifting the impending hole?

http://xs411.xs.to/xs411/07014/stpancras.jpg

potto

January 4th, 2007, 10:22 PM

SELondoner

January 4th, 2007, 11:43 PM

All great work, but the new road layout that has been created is a completely mess, the usual after thought. It beggers belief the new gleaming maze of barriers built to harrass those wanting to make the simple journey from from the main Station entrance to the St Pancras underground part

this really needed something interesting and integrated, hopefully this is just a short term solution before the square bit is formed.... but im not holding my breath

It will be much altered. On the one hand, the walking routes inside the stations will be improved when the stations are complete - for example I was on site at St P not so long ago watching guys knocking through between the future St P concourse and the new Western LUL ticket hall - so many more interchanges will be possible without going outside and crossing the road.

And the road will change at least twice more; once to open Pancras Road (and Midland Road) to serve the station, so all the temporary barriers on the W side of Pancras Road will go, and again when the road is realigned to allow the new development to start which should tie in with the new King's Cross NR stn Western Concourse. Sadly this element wasn't able to happen as quickly as everyone wanted because it was tied in with planning applications and listed building consent, so will happen some time after the International station opens, but hopefully before domestic IKF trains start (this part of the station would be most affected, wouldn't really be noticeable by the Eurostar passengers).

CharlieP

January 5th, 2007, 01:19 PM

To show the back of the Northern Hotel that someone mentioned, massive crane thing presumably for lifting the impending hole?

How can you lift a hole? :?

delores

January 9th, 2007, 09:50 PM

The roof looks great, even the new extension looks quiet polished, my only concern is the prominance of the signage for the whistlestop shop and some of the detailing like the handrails looks a bit iffy too. Also it looks like they have chosen some pretty dull seating in the new platform area, looks a bit crude and out of place with such a new and modern development, such a shame.

aquablue

January 10th, 2007, 12:22 AM

Berlin's new station is a match for this one.

Salif

January 10th, 2007, 12:26 AM

Berlin's new station is a match for this one.

Agreed, but that is not the point in this case.

St Pancras has always been a brilliant railway cathedral (even if it has up until recent years been allowed to shy away) and now it's also a first class European station. St Pancras has now set the standards for which all other major UK stations must meet.

My own quibble with St Pancras is that I really think it should have been re-built as a much larger station.

Bob

January 10th, 2007, 02:59 PM

potto

January 12th, 2007, 02:50 AM

yeah its pretty much all temporary stuff around there, what the pics show is the Midland line section of the station which is constantly being rearranged to make space for works so everything in that station is temporary at the moment and work is still being carried out

london lad

January 21st, 2007, 02:16 AM

Not sure if this link has been posted before- probably has but its quite good

http://www.lcrhq.co.uk/

Ratoncito

January 27th, 2007, 02:24 AM

Look at our High Speed Railway: TALGO 350, right now running between madrid and barcelona.

best regards

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/pato1.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/talgo350.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/talgo350_cab_gr.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/Talgo_350-1470.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/talgo2.jpg

sweek

January 27th, 2007, 02:27 AM

Look at our High Speed Railway: TALGO 350, right now running between madrid and barcelona.

Stop just spamming every other thread that has nothing to do with these Spanish trains with pictures like that! If people want to learn more about them, they'll go to the international forum.

Ratoncito

January 27th, 2007, 03:30 AM

I enclose pics of ESTACIÓN DE ATOCHA in Madrid (1855); used for high speed lines to Seville, Málaga, Valencia and Barcelona and for regional trains. The subway station has also been integrated into it.

It is the biggest train station in Madrid and thounsands of people use it to come to Madrid to work everyday....

Sadly, this is the reason why in the train bombing so many people died....it was crouded of people

The old docks have been transformed into a tropical garden with coffee shops with high glamour as pictures shows and new docks were built for the high speed lines apart.

The regional train docks are in a different floor.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/madrid_antiguo030g.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/atocha-exterior.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/estacion_atocha_07_g.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/estacion_atocha_06_g.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/estacion_atocha_05_g.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/atochacafeteratropical-1.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/atochacercanias.jpg

Jonesy55

January 27th, 2007, 03:32 AM

Atocha is a nice station, unfortunately there are currently no trains running from Madrid through the Channel Tunnel.

Salif

January 27th, 2007, 09:43 AM

Atocha is a nice station, unfortunately there are currently no trains running from Madrid through the Channel Tunnel.

But what a waste of a very nice train shed, stripped of it's trains and turned into a glorified garden centre. Imagine if they took the trains out of Barlow's train shed and stuck a Focus DIY superstore in there?!

ChrisV

January 27th, 2007, 09:47 AM

Atocha is a nice station, unfortunately there are currently no trains running from Madrid through the Channel Tunnel.

Deplorably, neither are there, nor will there be, any passenger trains from anywhere in Britain - apart from London - running through the Channel Tunnel - including from this, Hull Paragon, the last of the great barrel-vaulted railway 'cathedrals' to be built in the British Isles (about 100 years ago):-

[acknowledgements to forumer Up The Tigers who previously posted these on another thread]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/155/370585717_fcb299afca.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/370585716_da0b144c60.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/370585714_2a13c17aec.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/75/370585712_9c310ca9de.jpg?v=0

Zim Flyer

January 27th, 2007, 11:43 AM

Excellent pictures Chris, Hull is a stunning train station

ChrisV

January 27th, 2007, 12:56 PM

Yes it is, and they are stunning pics, taken by Up The Tigers. Just a pity about the train services.

BTW at the risk of cementing my Old Git Meldrew reputation, may I gently point out the term is railway station. Train station is N American English if English at all.

Ratoncito

January 27th, 2007, 06:03 PM

But what a waste of a very nice train shed, stripped of it's trains and turned into a glorified garden centre. Imagine if they took the trains out of Barlow's train shed and stuck a Focus DIY superstore in there?!

Well, I think the engineers that designed the new Atocha Station did it correctly given that with the new High Speed Railway Net to the South, East and North East, it was thought to grow a lot.... and it did...so the platforms were taken out of the old train station and this old shed was turned into a lovely garden with shops, restaurants, pizza bars, etc...

I do think they did well.

Best regards from Madrid

Ratoncito

January 27th, 2007, 06:20 PM

Atocha is a nice station, unfortunately there are currently no trains running from Madrid through the Channel Tunnel.

There is a High Speed Line being built between Madrid and the French frontier...when it is finished, RENFE (Spanish Railways) are thinking of opening a line between Madrid and London through Paris; it is expected to take about 6 or 7 hours, not bad.... and with high comfort trains and good food, I am sure a lot of people are going to take this choice instead of the plane

Since 20 years ago there is a Talgo Train that goes from Madrid Chamartin Station to Paris during the night; it takes 9 hours and they are usually full..

regards

ChrisV

January 27th, 2007, 06:53 PM

There is a High Speed Line being built between Madrid and the French frontier...when it is finished, RENFE (Spanish Railways) are thinking of opening a line between Madrid and London through Paris; it is expected to take about 6 or 7 hours, not bad.... and with high comfort trains and good food, I am sure a lot of people are going to take this choice instead of the plane

Since 20 years ago there is a Talgo Train that goes from Madrid Chamartin Station to Paris during the night; it takes 9 hours and they are usually full..

regards

Now that's very interesting. In Britain the railway establishment (including Eurostar) and the London supremacists continue to insist there's no market for direct international rail services to/from the Continent for the huge area of this country north and west of London, which includes some of the biggest urban agglomerations in Europe, despite the fact that even with bog-standard British low-speed rail the journey times between main cities in central, northern and western Britain and the likes of Paris and Brussels would be much less than those you quote from Spain.

It was a condition of authorising building the Channel Tunnel that so 'called 'Regional Eurostar' trains and services via the Channel Tunnel should be provided for the rest of the country beyond London. Despite that the rail operators, aided and abetted by our London-centric and London-obsessed government, have wriggled out of that commitment. To its credit (but so far without effect) our House of Commons Transport Committee looked into this scandal and concluded (and announced publicly) "The Regions have been cheated".

aquablue

January 27th, 2007, 08:39 PM

more boasting about spanish rail in a london forum.

Ratoncito

January 27th, 2007, 08:42 PM

Now that's very interesting. In Britain the railway establishment (including Eurostar) and the London supremacists continue to insist there's no market for direct international rail services to/from the Continent for the huge area of this country north and west of London, which includes some of the biggest urban agglomerations in Europe, despite the fact that even with bog-standard British low-speed rail the journey times between main cities in central, northern and western Britain and the likes of Paris and Brussels would be much less than those you quote from Spain.

It was a condition of authorising building the Channel Tunnel that so 'called 'Regional Eurostar' trains and services via the Channel Tunnel should be provided for the rest of the country beyond London. Despite that the rail operators, aided and abetted by our London-centric and London-obsessed government, have wriggled out of that commitment. To its credit (but so far without effect) our House of Commons Transport Committee looked into this scandal and concluded (and announced publicly) "The Regions have been cheated".

You are right, I do think there is a big market for international trains to/from London. Just think that Spain is nearly 45 million people and the Uk is 60 million and being smaller than the UK,our Madrid to Paris TALGOS keep on going full. If you wanna book a ticket, you'd better do it within 25 days in advance...otherwise you may have to go by plane or sleep in Madrid.

By the way, another big improvement in Spain is that airports have to be linked to the AVE net (AVE: High Speed Railway Net); therefore, if you can come to Madrid Barajas Airport and take an AVE to Valencia you can come back in the afternoon and take the plane back to the UK; That makes the market more dinamic...don't you think so?

I enclose some pics of the Terminal 4 of Barajas Airport where the AVE is supposed to arrive. I hope you like it

regards

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/Madrid/Barajas2.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/Madrid/Barajas5.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/Madrid/Barajas7.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/Madrid/Barajas8.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/Madrid/Barajas3.jpg

aquablue

January 27th, 2007, 10:35 PM

spain has made good progress, but there is no need to invade a UK topic with your photographs of spanish infrastructure..It seems like you are trying desperatlely to show-off

capslock

January 27th, 2007, 10:42 PM

:spam1:

Seriously - Barajas in a CTRL thread?

aquablue

January 27th, 2007, 10:48 PM

PS, We all know what Barajas looks like, you don't have to go and spam us....

Salif

January 28th, 2007, 01:32 AM

Well, I think the engineers that designed the new Atocha Station did it correctly given that with the new High Speed Railway Net to the South, East and North East, it was thought to grow a lot.... and it did...so the platforms were taken out of the old train station and this old shed was turned into a lovely garden with shops, restaurants, pizza bars, etc...

I do think they did well.

Best regards from Madrid

Wouldn't question the merits of the new station.

But you have to understand that to me a classic train shed like that without trains and with very large plants in their place just seems sad.

aquablue

January 28th, 2007, 04:52 AM

Hellooooo....these people like to showcase their new infrastructure to pump up their egos...lets not indulge their spamming in unrealted topics. Thank You.

Ratoncito

January 28th, 2007, 12:30 PM

I'm sorry, I did not want to show off nor invade forums with other topics, just exchange opinions with people from other countries

ChrisV

January 28th, 2007, 02:02 PM

I'm sorry, I did not want to show off nor invade forums with other topics, just exchange opinions with people from other countries
I don't think you're showing off, and your postings have provided some useful and interesting comparisons with the narrow-minded, short-sighted and hopelessly inadequate and London-centric CTRL scheme, and a much-needed reality check for those who think the way things are done here is the only way they can or should be done.

I apologise for the discourtesy some of my compatriots have subjected you to. As far as I'm concerned please keep it coming.

Zim Flyer

January 28th, 2007, 02:43 PM

I'm sorry, I did not want to show off nor invade forums with other topics, just exchange opinions with people from other countries

Hi Ratoncito, don't apologise you have nothing to apologise for. I thought your comments and pictures were interesting and relevant to what we were talking about in terms of station design. So carry on posting, you are most welcome to contribute. :cheers:

capslock

January 28th, 2007, 02:55 PM

I don't think you're showing off, and your postings have provided some useful and interesting comparisons with the narrow-minded, short-sighted and hopelessly inadequate and London-centric CTRL scheme, and a much-needed reality check for those who think the way things are done here is the only way they can or should be done.

I apologise for the discourtesy some of my compatriots have subjected you to. As far as I'm concerned please keep it coming.

I don't think I was being discourteous ChrisV and I hope you didn't think so Ratoncito. Your views and opinions are most certainly welcome, but posting loads of images of Barajas airport in Madrid in a thread about CTRL is a tenuous connection at best. (Lovely project by the way - I know some of the architects that worked on it):)

However comparing Spanish railways is relevant I guess, especially the new AVE connection between Madrid and Barcelona. My wife is from Barcelona and it's interesting to compare the Catalan view of how the new link was carried out with your own views.

As ChrisV says in his balanced post above, the whole CTRL scheme ran far from smoothly and is often perceived as being massively London-centric. I don't think anyone here would argue that it also stands in massive contrast to the general state of infrastructure investment in the rest of the UK.

I was genuinely surprised to find out how it's even more so in Spain. All trains and planes seem to have to go via Madrid. Not only that but the gap between the one or two shining examples, and the general state of affairs is huge. I once travelled on the Euromed between Barcelona and Valencia and it took almost as long for me to buy a ticket as it did to make the journey, and even then the shiny new TGV type train never seemed to get above 100mph. A train journey between Barcelona and Gijon (where I also have Spanish relatives), via Madrid of course, took my sister in law some 15 hours, compared with about 4 hours between London and Newcastle, a comparible distance.

I'm interested. Is Spain planning to expand it's highspeed network anywhere other than through Madrid?

Ratoncito

January 28th, 2007, 07:19 PM

I don't think I was being discourteous ChrisV and I hope you didn't think so Ratoncito. Your views and opinions are most certainly welcome, but posting loads of images of Barajas airport in Madrid in a thread about CTRL is a tenuous connection at best. (Lovely project by the way - I know some of the architects that worked on it):)

However comparing Spanish railways is relevant I guess, especially the new AVE connection between Madrid and Barcelona. My wife is from Barcelona and it's interesting to compare the Catalan view of how the new link was carried out with your own views.

As ChrisV says in his balanced post above, the whole CTRL scheme ran far from smoothly and is often perceived as being massively London-centric. I don't think anyone here would argue that it also stands in massive contrast to the general state of infrastructure investment in the rest of the UK.

I was genuinely surprised to find out how it's even more so in Spain. All trains and planes seem to have to go via Madrid. Not only that but the gap between the one or two shining examples, and the general state of affairs is huge. I once travelled on the Euromed between Barcelona and Valencia and it took almost as long for me to buy a ticket as it did to make the journey, and even then the shiny new TGV type train never seemed to get above 100mph. A train journey between Barcelona and Gijon (where I also have Spanish relatives), via Madrid of course, took my sister in law some 15 hours, compared with about 4 hours between London and Newcastle, a comparible distance.

I'm interested. Is Spain planning to expand it's highspeed network anywhere other than through Madrid?

wELL, the problem is that RENFE's map is radial: all train lines are born in Madrid to all cities in Spain; Of course there are transversal lines and will have to be updated.

The Gobvernment is investing in the main lines:

madrid -sevilla
madrid - málaga
madrid - galicia
madrid - barcelona
and madrid - valencia

lots of other train lines use at least some of these high speed rails so all of them are being improved.

A big problem for trains and roads in Spain is the orography...it is so hard. Have you had a look at an orographical map of France??? it is almost flat...but not so much in Spain.

Fortunately, nowadays, technology has advanced a lot and any tunnel or bridge can be built in anywhere, no matter how big difficulty is.

I hope next time you have to go from Barcelona to Gijón, the train has improved.

Best regards

PD oh, thanks a lot for you encouraging me to continue on this forum

Ratoncito

January 28th, 2007, 07:24 PM

Salif

January 28th, 2007, 07:54 PM

I enjoy reading about our fellow European countries railways, they are after all what we are aspiring to. The UK, France and Spain are quite centralised so it's no surprise that the majority of our respective railway networks centre on the capital city.

Engel

January 28th, 2007, 08:18 PM

¿How many speed train lines strt from London?

sweek

January 28th, 2007, 08:49 PM

¿How many speed train lines strt from London?
By speed train you mean a high speed train?

There's the Eurostar to Paris and the Eurostar to Brussels that are proper high speed lines at 300km/h., and the West Coast Mainline (to Manchester/Liverpool - Glasgow) with speeds up to 225 km/h and the East Coast Mainline (to Leeds/York - Newcastle - Edinburgh) which operates at 200 km/h.

Ratoncito

January 28th, 2007, 09:11 PM

By speed train you mean a high speed train?

There's the Eurostar to Paris and the Eurostar to Brussels that are proper high speed lines at 300km/h., and the West Coast Mainline (to Manchester/Liverpool - Glasgow) with speeds up to 225 km/h and the East Coast Mainline (to Leeds/York - Newcastle - Edinburgh) which operates at 200 km/h.

I have heard the main problem about British Rails is that they were privatised in the 90's and private companies have not invested enought for a good maintenance nor for new lines and this has damaged the British Railway Net ...isn't it?

Even so, what you say abot current railways' speed is quite good: 300 km/h, 225 km/h, etc... it sounds excellent

Sadly, in spain, lots of railways do not go faster than 140 Km/h which is very low.

I enclose a picture of a High Speed Talgo (350 Km/h)between Madrid and Barcelona.....hopefully, in not many years, most Spanish Rail Lines will be provided of these trains.... lovely isn't it???

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/talgo3501.jpg

Salif

January 28th, 2007, 09:12 PM

Salif

January 28th, 2007, 09:16 PM

I have heard the main problem about British Rails is that they were privatised in the 90's and private companies have not invested enought for a good maintenance nor for new lines and this has damaged the British Railway Net ...isn't it?

Even so, what you say abot current railways' speed is quite good: 300 km/h, 225 km/h, etc... it sounds excellent

Sadly, in spain, lots of railways do not go faster than 140 Km/h which is very low.

I enclose a picture of a High Speed Talgo (350 Km/h)between Madrid and Barcelona.....hopefully, in not many years, most Spanish Rail Lines will be provided of these trains.... lovely isn't it???

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w111/fdoarena/talgo3501.jpg

Problem with much of the British mainlines is that the speeds are varied.

As an example the East Coast mainline has a speed of 200km/h between York and Darlington but north of that it's a virtual crawl through Durham, Newcastle and Cramlington then down to 80km/h at the infamous Morpeth curve. Through some parts of Northumberland there are speeds of 180-200km/h and parts with 100km/h running.

Our railways have been done as a bit-part process, would much prefer if we could build one big 350km/h line from start to finish.

ChrisV

January 29th, 2007, 12:36 AM

Thinking that we are the best and we take the best and the only possible decissions is very dangerous.....it does not let us think nor improve....don't you think so?

We must always make an effort to open and strecht our minds, and look far ahead in the future...otherwise, we will probably stay behind lots of other countries.

regards

Capslock rightly points out that Spain's transport networks do look to be very capital-centric - the one saving grace being that at least your capital is in the middle of the country, having sensibly been chosen for that very reason centuries ago, ie precisely the opposite of the hopelessly unbalanced British situation with a capital stuck away on one corner of the country.

To imagine how this affects the rest of Britain, how would it be if your international rail links from France terminated at Pamplona or Bilbao, and travellers to anywhere in the rest of the country including Madrid were forced to go through customs and immigration control at the Pamplona or Bilbao terminus and then change to low speed small-gauge domestic trains, or go to Pamplona or Bilbao airport to fly onwards? And if your ruling establishment and your railway operators insisted that there was no viable market for direct international rail services to Madrid and the rest of the country beyond Pamplona or Bilbao?

ChrisV

January 29th, 2007, 09:35 AM

[CENTER]I have heard the main problem about British Rails is that they were privatised in the 90's and private companies have not invested enought for a good maintenance nor for new lines and this has damaged the British Railway Net ...isn't it?
The problems go back a lot further than the privatisation - in fact some of the private companies introduced innovative train services on routes which the previous state railway operator (British Rail) would not have even considered. The fact is that except for a few favoured longer distance routes and the London area commuter network, the British railway system had been in forced decline, with widespread run-down and closure of routes and stations, for several decades at least. This negative approach was driven by successive governments in London, unimaginative and conservative railway management, and the powerful road lobby.

[CENTER]Even so, what you say abot current railways' speed is quite good: 300 km/h, 225 km/h, etc... it sounds excellent

Sadly, in spain, lots of railways do not go faster than 140 Km/h which is very low.
Yes the traditional Spanish low train speeds (for unerstandable reasons) must be acknowledged, but at least Spain's putting serious effort into transforming the stuation with far-sighted investment in new lines and services, including international ones. Most services in Briatin are also low speed, and here nothing effective is being done about it. The prevalent establishment (including railway operators') mentality here is that Britain is too small to benefit from true high speed rail. Again, your postings should provide a useful reality check to that fallacy, or should if anybody with any authority was listening: The distances from Madrid to Barcelona or the French frontier are about the same as (for example) London - Newcastle or Birmingham - Glasgow.

[CENTER]I enclose a picture of a High Speed Talgo (350 Km/h)between Madrid and Barcelona.....hopefully, in not many years, most Spanish Rail Lines will be provided of these trains.... lovely isn't it???
Agreed. Am I right in thinking that that track gauge on that new high speed line is the standard European 1435mm (4 feet 8.5 inches in real money) rather than the traditional Spanish 5 ft 6 in (1805 mm?) gauge?

CharlieP

January 29th, 2007, 01:54 PM

Our railways have been done as a bit-part process, would much prefer if we could build one big 350km/h line from start to finish.

I'd rather see 360km/h myself.

sweek

January 29th, 2007, 02:08 PM

Capslock rightly points out that Spain's transport networks do look to be very capital-centric - the one saving grace being that at least your capital is in the middle of the country, having sensibly been chosen for that very reason centuries ago, ie precisely the opposite of the hopelessly unbalanced British situation with a capital stuck away on one corner of the country.
Haha, you do know that you can travel just as far to the south-west as to the north of England from London, right? And that you can't just 'choose' how cities grow out to be.
Anyway, you're making the same ridiculous arguments again. Make your own thread about regional Eurostar services and all the stuff you have to say about that, including some feasibility studies if you can do that. This thread is about the CTRL which happens to be a link between London and the Channel Tunnel.

ChrisV

January 29th, 2007, 02:32 PM

Haha, you do know that you can travel just as far to the south-west as to the north of England from London, right? And that you can't just 'choose' how cities grow out to be.
And your point is??

Anyway, you're making the same ridiculous arguments again. Make your own thread about regional Eurostar services and all the stuff you have to say about that, including some feasibility studies if you can do that. This thread is about the CTRL which happens to be a link between London and the Channel Tunnel.
Another London-supremacist attempt to stifle relevant debate. Anyway what's 'ridiculous' about asking why some of Europe's biggest urban agglomerations, in central and Northern Britain, are denied the much-needed benefits of direct integration into the Eurpoean high speed rail network by being shut out of access to the CTRL? - as Ratoncito has pointed out, much smaller conurbations like Madrid successfully support and benefit from international high speed rail services over much longer distances.

Ratoncito

January 29th, 2007, 03:35 PM

Problem with much of the British mainlines is that the speeds are varied.

As an example the East Coast mainline has a speed of 200km/h between York and Darlington but north of that it's a virtual crawl through Durham, Newcastle and Cramlington then down to 80km/h at the infamous Morpeth curve. Through some parts of Northumberland there are speeds of 180-200km/h and parts with 100km/h running.

Our railways have been done as a bit-part process, would much prefer if we could build one big 350km/h line from start to finish.

Don't forget than railways were invented in Britain so some of the railways you have nowadays were built in 1850 and even before that date. I know they have to be updated and improved but even so, the UK has got a good railway net, which is a matter of National Pride for the UK.

I remember taking a train between Reading and Oxford in 1988 and the gap between Spanish and British Trains was quite big......British Rails were further much better than our trains.... so even though 20 years have gone past, I suppose Brtish Trains are still quite good.

best regards from Madrid

I don't know what the British government can do to make British Rails improve...perhaps public aid for new investments???? perhaps... I don't know

elfabyanos

January 29th, 2007, 04:21 PM

Generally the trains are much better than they were in 1988, apart from lines that still use the same trains, but mostly they've been replaced. Also, one has to remember that the national pasttime in Britain is Whingeing and moaning and balling about the weather, the trains, the weather and phone company. Followed by a bit more moaning about nothing specific and then continuing to complain about something non-descript that no-one can argue with just because we feel like moaning.

I think the trains are OK. And I agree, we should be proud of what we have. It could be better, but so can everything.

sweek

January 29th, 2007, 04:41 PM

And your point is??

Another London-supremacist attempt to stifle relevant debate. Anyway what's 'ridiculous' about asking why some of Europe's biggest urban agglomerations, in central and Northern Britain, are denied the much-needed benefits of direct integration into the Eurpoean high speed rail network by being shut out of access to the CTRL? - as Ratoncito has pointed out, much smaller conurbations like Madrid successfully support and benefit from international high speed rail services over much longer distances.

My point is that London is hardly in a corner, and that it is not just "chosen" as main city in the UK.

And that is not an attempt to stifle relevant debate, because it isn't relevant here. All those questions are quite valid, but not in this thread.
And you still haven't proven that this is a much-needed integration, either. I still want to see those figures showing us how much traffic there could be on a route like that.

Here, a thread about the subject. Let's discuss it there: http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=11532303

sarflonlad

January 29th, 2007, 09:50 PM

ChrisV you previously caused a perfectly decent thread to descend into some blah blahhing about your views on London. Yes we know how much you loathe that absolutely everything originates and comes from and goes to London [sic] but it's unwelcome and about as pointless as the spanish train photos trolling.

Go start a thread elsewhere. Suggested titles include: CTRL - The London Conspiracy? CTRL - Brand new tunnels to Hull?, Londoners - the antichrist?

ChrisV

January 29th, 2007, 11:50 PM

For goodness sake grow up.

elfabyanos

January 30th, 2007, 09:38 AM

I don't think you realise how offensive you are Chris, it's your turn to grow up.

ChrisV

January 30th, 2007, 10:18 AM

I'm sure others can judge for themselves who's really being offensive on thread. I've merely, and quite reasonably, asked for the benefits of CTRL to be extended to the rest of the country which is helping to pay for it.

elfabyanos

January 30th, 2007, 11:04 AM

It's the Crossrail thread all over again.
Jan 27th post 183 "the London supremacists"
jan 29th post 207 "Another London-supremacist attempt to stifle relevant debate"
Jan 29th post 212 "For goodness sake grow up."
And then another one today on the new thread, "Now let's sit back and wait for the rabid London-supremacists..."

I'm sure others can judge for themselves who's really being offensive on thread.

And then you say to others from other countries (Jan 28th post 192) "I apologise for the discourtesy some of my compatriots have subjected you to." pot calling the kettle...

ChrisV

January 30th, 2007, 11:14 AM

My point is that London is hardly in a corner, and that it is not just "chosen" as main city in the UK.
Let me try to get it across to you and others:-

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/374329414_c970026bf4.jpg?v=0

See, London IS in a corner. And while it wasn't (necessarily) 'chosen' as the main city it certainly was chosen (highly inconveniently - and worse - for the rest of the country) as the seat of government by the invading Normans in the 11thC.

There's no (justifiable) reason why the British or English seat of govt shouldn't be moved to somewhere more central and convenient for the nation(s) as a whole. London would remain a large, prosperous and (for many) attractive place in that eventuality; while the govt move would provide a good incentive to at long last pay due attention to the rest of the country's international transport needs.

ChrisH

January 30th, 2007, 11:34 AM

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4131/ctrlna1.png (http://imageshack.us)

It would be absolutely futile to build a high-speed rail link to the Channel Tunnel that didn't go through London. Draw a straight line from Folkestone to Birmingham and it goes right through London!

sweek

January 30th, 2007, 11:36 AM

Let me try to get it across to you and others:-

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/374329414_c970026bf4.jpg?v=0

See, London IS in a corner. And while it wasn't (necessarily) 'chosen' as the main city it certainly was chosen (highly inconveniently - and worse - for the rest of the country) as the seat of government by the invading Normans in the 11thC.

There's no (justifiable) reason why the British or English seat of govt shouldn't be moved to somewhere more central and convenient for the nation(s) as a whole. London would remain a large, prosperous and (for many) attractive place in that eventuality; while the govt move would provide a good incentive to at long last pay due attention to the rest of the country's international transport needs.
How about: because London's the most easy city to get to from anywhere? And the buildings, the road and rail links are already there?
And it's the biggest and most important city for the country?
It'd cost ridiculous amounts of money for no good reason. A government that is further away from where you live doesn't make it less of a government for you. Boy those people in Vancouver must be feeling as if they're government's completely out of touch, otherwise! And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Londoners get more votes or anything during elections?

And I still want to see some numbers about this London-centrism and how this is bad for the country. Remember the study from last thread showing how much money flows from the capital to the rest of the country?

And that map is obviously misleading. You said a corner of England and show us a map of the whole British isles. I'm not saying it isn't in the South-East or anything either, but since everyone and everything can easily get here it is actually the central hub, no matter where it is physically located.

I'd like to see the country a whole lot more decentralised, really. I think that is the way to go to get more in touch with regional issues; let regional/local governments handle them as much as they can, while keeping the national level and national powers for things in the whole nation's interest.

elfabyanos

January 30th, 2007, 11:41 AM

I motion that we move the capital to the Isle of Man, because there is too much bias towards the mainland, and because there is too much bias towards Douglas on said island so the new uk capital should be on the other side facing west, and just to make sure lets have it a few miles in to the sea.

sweek

January 30th, 2007, 11:51 AM

How about we buy Sealand for it? It's for sale anyway!

ChrisV

January 30th, 2007, 11:55 AM

IOM would actually be a good choice for a pan-British Isles capital, but there's never likely to be a need for that, for deep-seated political/emotional reasons, whatever its potential benefits.

Re internal capital, for a small territory like IOM it really doesn't matter if there's one dominant central city/town like Douglas. In the much bigger island of Great Britain it really does disastrously impact on the rest of the country, particularly on the main urban agglomerations in the island's heartland, to have a remotely located and over-dominant capital in one corner of the island.

At the other end of the scale, for a pan-continent federation like Canada or USA the location of the federal seat of govt is less important than for a country the size of ours.

sweek

January 30th, 2007, 12:09 PM

Yes, let's choose an island, make it as far away as possible for the people that may need to be there, and have ridiculous travelling costs. And do you think politicians will use a nice ferry? Of course not, they're going for a lot of polluting flights.

But does that mean you agree with a more decentralised country, with counties having much more to say and them funding their own projects as much as possible? You do know that means there's going to be less money flowing from London to the rest of the country, right? That way the location of the capital will become much less important!

Seriously, I'm Dutch, and have lived in Belgium and Sweden before I moved here. I've never heard anyone complain about the location of their capital or anything like that. Even though they are all centralised countries, especially if you consider the Randstad as one metropolis.

elfabyanos

January 30th, 2007, 12:14 PM

Re internal capital, for a small territory like IOM it really doesn't matter if there's one dominant central city/town like Douglas.

I think you should take that argument to the total PRADS (Peel Residents Against Douglas Supremacy) and see what they have to say about it.

"it really does disastrously impact on the rest of the country, particularly on the main urban agglomerations in the island's heartland, to have a remotely located and over-dominant capital in one corner of the island."

This is overt propaganda style nonsense and is not based on any figures whatsoever to back up these claims, and continues to ignore the facts and figures that support the opposite. I thought today would be boring in the transport threads but how wrong was I.

elfabyanos

January 30th, 2007, 12:17 PM

Seriously, I'm Dutch, and have lived in Belgium and Sweden before I moved here. I've never heard anyone complain about the location of their capital or anything like that. Even though they are all centralised countries, especially if you consider the Randstad as one metropolis.

And I thought we were all to assume that you were a London born London "supremicist".

ChrisV

January 30th, 2007, 12:21 PM

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/374360208_01944d4072.jpg?v=0

It would be absolutely futile to build a high-speed rail link to the Channel Tunnel that didn't go through London. Draw a straight line from Folkestone to Birmingham and it goes right through London!
So why doesn't the M25 go through the middle of London? - to avoid adding to London congestion and to avoid traffic to/from elsewhere which doesn't want to go to London getting stuck in it. Same applies to international rail travel for the rest of Britain.

The London - Glasgow West Coast Mainline trains similarly bypass Birmingham and Manchester (Britain's 2nd and 3rd largest cities, and both with large and populous metropolitan hinterlands). CTRL trains for the rest of the country beyond London should similarly bypass London rather than adding to the congestion on London's rail network and adding huge delays and inconveience for international travellers who don't want to go to London.

sweek

January 30th, 2007, 12:28 PM

Alright then, you find me a railway company that is willing to build and operate that.
And the CTRL isn't congested at all. It's not even there yet, and it can gladly take up a few more services going from Stratford northwards. And obviously Stratford International is not congested at all.
And why you keep ignoring the possibilities for a high speed link from London to Birmingham and the north is beyond me. You know how much traffic there is between those cities?
And hey, go to the other thread.

elfabyanos

January 30th, 2007, 12:34 PM

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/374360208_01944d4072.jpg?v=0

So why doesn't the M25 go through the middle of London? - to avoid adding to London congestion and to avoid traffic to/from elsewhere which doesn't want to go to London getting stuck in it. Same applies to international rail travel for the rest of Britain.

The London - Glasgow West Coast Mainline trains similarly bypass Birmingham and Manchester (Britain's 2nd and 3rd largest cities, and both with large and populous metropolitan hinterlands). CTRL trains for the rest of the country beyond London should similarly bypass London rather than adding to the congestion on London's rail network and adding huge delays and inconveience for international travellers who don't want to go to London.

There is no comparison - even at the best projections more Intercity trains bypass brimingham per hour than would need to bypass London in a day. The WCML is far beyond anything else in this country and the Trent Valley bypass was built in a slightly more willing political climate.

In answer to the confusion with the M25, the majority of vehicles on it are not going from France to the midlands, they are going from the Home counties to London, but going in on the correct side of London appropriate to their journey. (e.g. to go from Sevenoaks to Ealing I used to drive all the way round to the M4 turn off and come in as it was twice as far but twice as quick). There also happens to be a high speed rail link going halfway accross London at the moment, which has been designed with the purpose of extending onwards accross the other half of the city but I'm not so sure anyone noticed (hints at name of thread).

ChrisV

January 30th, 2007, 01:23 PM

Alright then, you find me a railway company that is willing to build and operate that.
Such crucial national infrastructure projects can't be left to the private sector, any more than than CTRL and the Channel Tunnel itself have been - both have had massive public funding input and subsidy, for a scheme which even the railway professionals acknowledge benefits mainly London and the surrounding area.

And the CTRL isn't congested at all. It's not even there yet, and it can gladly take up a few more services going from Stratford northwards. And obviously Stratford International is not congested at all.
Even if the CTRL itself proves to have spare capacity for the full service provision the rest of the country needs, those trains will still get snarled up in the congestion on the intervening London area rail network, where they'll also be subject to the curent severe speed restrictions. Bypassing London with the high speed line I suggest rather than going via London could lop an hour off the rest of the country's international rail journeys, quite apart from the hour or more transfer/ customs control time at the London terminal.

And why you keep ignoring the possibilities for a high speed link from London to Birmingham and the north is beyond me. You know how much traffic there is between those cities?.
I don't ignore it. In fact just one such HS link is not enough - the 'West Coast' corridor would do nothing for the eastern side of central Britain, nor fot the SW and S Wales. The high speed links I suggest could (and should) also cater for domestic high speed travel - not least NE-SW which is particularly poorly provided for at present, particularly by comparison with the London-based services - but also from places like south Essex to central and northern England and/ or to Kent/ Sussex.
And hey, go to the other thread.
As well, not instead. This debate's relevant to both.

ChrisV

January 30th, 2007, 01:49 PM

Yes, let's choose an island, make it as far away as possible for the people that may need to be there, and have ridiculous travelling costs. And do you think politicians will use a nice ferry? Of course not, they're going for a lot of polluting flights.
That sounds just like London/ 'Home Counties' now, vis a vis the rest of Britain. May not be literally an island, but increasingly regards itself as so, turning its back on the rest of us while cementing (literally) its links with contintental Europe.

But does that mean you agree with a more decentralised country, with counties having much more to say and them funding their own projects as much as possible? You do know that means there's going to be less money flowing from London to the rest of the country, right? That way the location of the capital will become much less important!
YES YES YES PLEASE!!!!!! Given the chance and time the rest of us can and will build our own economy and proseperity, even if we have to live through interesting times at the start.

Remember that revealing public comment from the last Governor of the Bank of England, that unemployment andc economic stagnation in the North is "a price worth paying" to keep the South's economy on-track. The sooner we're free of that sort of misrule from the remote SE establishment the better.

Seriously, I'm Dutch, and have lived in Belgium and Sweden before I moved here. I've never heard anyone complain about the location of their capital or anything like that. Even though they are all centralised countries, especially if you consider the Randstad as one metropolis.
I do consider the Randstad as one metropolis, a much better and more sensibly organised one than London, and one which the metropolitan areas in Briatin's heartland could and should emulate given the chance.

As for Belgium, that's also an excellently organised country with its capital bang in the middle, and on the ethnic north-south dividing line, and with short distances and direct links with the rest of the country.

And you of all poeple shoudn't need reminding that the Belgians fought a long and bloody war to secure independence from your lot in early 19thC - and even then the Dutch used their territorial grip on the Scheldt estuary to strangle the Belgian port of Antwerp, till the Belgians eventually paid your country huge blackmail money to secure international navigation access rights. That's exactly how it feels from the viewpoint of the rest of Britain, with London/SE having such a stranglehold over our international transport and trade.

sweek

January 30th, 2007, 02:14 PM

Such crucial national infrastructure projects can't be left to the private sector, any more than than CTRL and the Channel Tunnel itself have been - both have had massive public funding input and subsidy, for a scheme which even the railway professionals acknowledge benefits mainly London and the surrounding area.
I'm not saying all the funding should be private - although as much as possible should be, I think. But any railway company would want that service to stop in Stratford too I'm sure.

Even if the CTRL itself proves to have spare capacity for the full service provision the rest of the country needs, those trains will still get snarled up in the congestion on the intervening London area rail network, where they'll also be subject to the curent severe speed restrictions. Bypassing London with the high speed line I suggest rather than going via London could lop an hour off the rest of the country's international rail journeys, quite apart from the hour or more transfer/ customs control time at the London terminal.
Which is why I think we need a north-south high speed link from London to Birmingham / Manchester etc. first. It's the most important and most congested railway that needs to be taken care of. Birmingham to Paris would be a secondary line, and with an easy link between the London - Birmingham and London - Paris high speed link, you could construct a high speed Birmingham - Stratford - Paris service, if it's financially do-able.

I don't ignore it. In fact just one such HS link is not enough - the 'West Coast' corridor would do nothing for the eastern side of central Britain, nor fot the SW and S Wales. The high speed links I suggest could (and should) also cater for domestic high speed travel - not least NE-SW which is particularly poorly provided for at present, particularly by comparison with the London-based services - but also from places like south Essex to central and northern England and/ or to Kent/ Sussex.

Do you ever think about costs too? I wonder how many local governments want to pay for all of that.
And I think you have your priorities all wrong. Obviously there's much more potential and need for services into London than to the continent, look at passenger flows!

That sounds just like London/ 'Home Counties' now, vis a vis the rest of Britain. May not be literally an island, but increasingly regards itself as so, turning its back on the rest of us while cementing (literally) its links with contintental Europe.
Well, that might be how you feel about it, but you'll have to tell me how 'we' are turning our back on you. If you're pro-decentralisation then wouldn't that mean 'us' turning our back on you even more and letting 'you' figure it out yourself, to put it crudely? Right now there's a money flow from 'us' to 'you'. What are the bad things we're doing to 'you'?

YES YES YES PLEASE!!!!!! Given the chance and time the rest of us can and will build our own economy and proseperity, even if we have to live through interesting times at the start.

Glad we agree.

I do consider the Randstad as one metropolis, a much better and more sensibly organised one than London, and one which the metropolitan areas in Briatin's heartland could and should emulate given the chance.

Better in what way? For example, if I want to go from where I used to live (Maastricht, south-east) to the Groningen (north-east), I would have to go via the Randstad, even though that is a huge detour. There is a route that would be less km., but it would take much longer because it's a single-track diesel one and I'd have to change trains about five times.
Almost all railways in the Netherlands go to and from the Randstad; it is just as centralised as Britain.

As for Belgium, that's also an excellently organised country with its capital bang in the middle, and on the ethnic north-south dividing line, and with short distances and direct links with the rest of the country.
Belgium and "excellently organised" in one sentence? :lol: Anyway, there also, almost all trains go to and from Brussels, making the route through there one of the busiest there is. I had no trains anywhere near me when I lived there.

And you of all poeple shoudn't need reminding that the Belgians fought a long and bloody war to secure independence from your lot in early 19thC - and even then the Dutch used their territorial grip on the Scheldt estuary to strangle the Belgian port of Antwerp, till the Belgians eventually paid your country huge blackmail money to secure international navigation access rights. That's exactly how it feels from the viewpoint of the rest of Britain, with London/SE having such a stranglehold over our international transport and trade.
Well, that might be how it feels to you, but again I'd like you to prove that. Studies and such would be nice!

elfabyanos

January 30th, 2007, 02:28 PM

Even if the CTRL itself proves to have spare capacity for the full service provision the rest of the country needs, those trains will still get snarled up in the congestion on the intervening London area rail network, where they'll also be subject to the curent severe speed restrictions. Bypassing London with the high speed line I suggest rather than going via London could lop an hour off the rest of the country's international rail journeys, quite apart from the hour or more transfer/ customs control time at the London terminal.
.

The Ctrl goes to St P, the WCML goes to just next to there, a proper connection can be made for much less than a whole new route around London, and you will save about 30 seconds in going around London because THERE IS ALREADY A HIGH SPEED LINE BEING BUILT WITH CAPACITY FOR REGIONAL EUROSTAR!

elfabyanos

January 30th, 2007, 02:42 PM

This again has descended into a thread with the logical worthyness as the Theism/Atheism threads on Richard Dawkins forums.

sarflonlad

January 30th, 2007, 05:00 PM

Can't people just ignore ChrisV? It's like talking to a passionate christian about gay rights. You're not going to change someone's beliefs and bigotry no matter what the actual facts happen to be.

ChrisV

January 30th, 2007, 06:37 PM

If ever there was a case of pot/kettle syndrome it's got to be that.

BTW as a devout heathen but with many 'pasionate christians' among family, friends and neighbours let me assure you 'passionate christianity' certainly does NOT necessarily go hand in hand with homophobia and/or opposition or gay rights. So that's just another instance of your personal ignorance and bigotry.

elfabyanos

January 31st, 2007, 09:38 AM

Go away you silly person.

ChrisV

January 31st, 2007, 12:27 PM

I'm not saying all the funding should be private - although as much as possible should be, I think. But any railway company would want that service to stop in Stratford too I'm sure.
The CTRL London bypass route I suggest could, and IMHO should have an intermediate international station, Ashford-style, near Brentwood, with direct links with the Essex/ East Anglian domestic rail network and the London Underground. This would benefit the important Essex/ East Anglia region far more than Stratford, particularly if (as it should) this international high speed line was also used for a whole range of new inter-regional and other domestic train services bypassing London (eg the SE Essex conurbation to Central and Northern England - trust me, I lived in Southend for some years and my father died there in 2005 having lived there longer than anywhere else, so I know what a pain it was, is and will always be having to traipse through London to get anywhere else by public transport).

Which is why I think we need a north-south high speed link from London to Birmingham / Manchester etc. first. It's the most important and most congested railway that needs to be taken care of. Birmingham to Paris would be a secondary line, and with an easy link between the London - Birmingham and London - Paris high speed link, you could construct a high speed Birmingham - Stratford - Paris service, if it's financially do-able.
Perhaps you should talk to friend Elfbanyos who opined recently on this very thread that the existing British rail system is fine, we should all stop moaning about it and be satisfied with what we've got, ie no need for any high speed link IHHO. personally I disagree with you both on this - just 'A' high speed link isn't enough, we ned a comprehensive network - including good links between cities and regions other than to/from London.

Re Brum-Paris, I personally do not share the appraent national obsession with Paris - I think good high speed comminications between our central and northern heartlands and Benelux/Rhineland/Ruhr (for starters) are far more important.

Do you ever think about costs too? I wonder how many local governments want to pay for all of that.
And I think you have your priorities all wrong. Obviously there's much more potential and need for services into London than to the continent, look at passenger flows!
Of course I think about costs - including the ultimate cost to the rest of the country of NOT investing in such direct international communications. It shouldn't be for local government to pay for projects of such national/international importance.

Re 'priorities', the flows into (and from) London are already pretty well catered for, whereas the rest of the country effectively has no access to our only fixed link with the continent.

Well, that might be how you feel about it, but you'll have to tell me how 'we' are turning our back on you. If you're pro-decentralisation then wouldn't that mean 'us' turning our back on you even more and letting 'you' figure it out yourself, to put it crudely? Right now there's a money flow from 'us' to 'you'. What are the bad things we're doing to 'you'?
Any Northerner with a head on their shoulders (and many a thoughful and honest Southerner) knows exactly what I'm talking about, and I don't expect to have to spell it out to you. Perhaps your Brum-based compatriot Engels might be able to give you some insight for starters, perhaps not - I'm not inside his head.

Better in what way? For example, if I want to go from where I used to live (Maastricht, south-east) to the Groningen (north-east), I would have to go via the Randstad, even though that is a huge detour. There is a route that would be less km., but it would take much longer because it's a single-track diesel one and I'd have to change trains about five times.
Almost all railways in the Netherlands go to and from the Randstad; it is just as centralised as Britain.
I agree it looks as if the Dutch, perhaps specifically the ruling Hollanders, have some way to go to invest in facilities to enable and encourage the country's other regions, including Limburg and Friesland, to communicate with each other. Of course apart from anything else your native Maastricht is something of a misfit Netherlandswise, on its odd peninsula, much closer to Brussels than the Randstad, and having been unwillingly press-ganged into Netherlands instead of Belgium following that 1830s war.

And neither Maastricht nor Groningen can be compared in any reasonable way with the likes of Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield and their densely populated metropolitan hinterlands - it's more like Chesterfield - Ipswich or Northampton - Weymouth, for example (not that I'd rule out such direct inter-regional rail services). But to hand it to your political masters in Holland, at least Maastricht got to host an important international summit for which it will ever be famed - can you imagine any Londoncentric British government holding such events in the likes of Chesterfield or Northampton or anywhere but London? - which is part of my point.

But according to info on the EU website Groningen and I believe Maastricht do reckon to be getting plugged into the European high speed rail network - what a contrast with the situation here, where our Londoncentric establishment refuses to believe even major cities outside the SE are unworthy of similar treatment.

Belgium and "excellently organised" in one sentence? :lol: Anyway, there also, almost all trains go to and from Brussels, making the route through there one of the busiest there is. I had no trains anywhere near me when I lived there.
Sorry to hear a Dutchman echo the mindless kneejerk anti-Belgian bigotry which some tenth-rate stand-up comic here started as a substitute for humour. Personally, while being aware of their less positive sides I've little but admiration for both countries and their people. And the point I was making re Belgium stands - in any country you can find yourself living away from the rail network, or choose to.

Well, that might be how it feels to you, but again I'd like you to prove that. Studies and such would be nice!
As I've said before if somebody pays me enough I'll get the studies done - not that such studies even provide al the answers.