New rail speed record ....

[teuchter]

When someone told me a TGV had been running at 356mph today, I was about to tell them off for mixing up mph and kph - but it's true, France has just set a new speed record for trains running on conventional steel rails:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6521295.stm

 

[f for fake]

all the more faster to run away when the germans attack again

*sorry but it had to be done*

 

[gnoriac]

Vive le tgv francais! A bas les merdes chemins de fer privatisees anglais. Les escargots sont plus vite.

 

[gentlegreen]

Oui, tu as raison :-

By all accounts the Intercity run from London to Manchester takes longer now than it did in 1895 or summat

 

[aylee]

Jean-Marie Le Pen, presidential candidate for the right-wing Front National, said the record was a national victory. "It is not Europe that is world champion, it is France," he said.

Twat.

Even so, 357mph.

I'd love to see the bearded twat's leaning trains do that.

Actually, I wouldn't.

 

[Tom A]

Twat.

Even so, 357mph.

I'd love to see the bearded twat's leaning trains do that.

Actually, I wouldn't.

Get your sickbags ready!

 

[samk]

Get your sickbags ready!

If they could do it out the window it would be a deadly missile

 

[Kid_Eternity]

That's fucking fast, aint that something like London to Manchester in an hour?

 

[teuchter]

That's fucking fast, aint that something like London to Manchester in an hour?

More like London to Edinburgh in about an hour ...

 

[Kid_Eternity]

More like London to Edinburgh in about an hour ...

Yeah just checked, thought Manchester was further away for some reason...




















*mental note to self, there is life outside London and they're not all savages*

 

[Roadkill]

That TGV really was shifting, wasn't it! Very impressive IMO. Shows what can be done with dedicated high-speed lines and a government prepared to invest properly in public transport....

Get your sickbags ready!

The Pendolino is heavily based on the old Advanced Passenger Train, whatever claims Virgin might make for its novelty. British Rail sold the rights to the APT to the Italian firm Pendolino after the government lost confidence in the project and pulled the funding plug. Ironically enough, BR were close to getting it right. Italy had a tilting train in service in 1990, much of the technology for which was based on the APT. Twelve years later the company that developed it, Fiat Ferrovia, was owned by Alstom, and produced a version for Virgin, who've happily taken all the credit and airbrushed from the record the fact that most of the legwork was done by the Italians and by much-maligned old British Rail...

 

[pogofish]

That TGV really was shifting, wasn't it! Very impressive IMO. Shows what can be done with dedicated high-speed lines and a government prepared to invest properly in public transport....

Didn't they have something on Newsnight the other day that suggested that despite being state owned, SNCF got no subsidy at all. If so, all the more impressive.

 

[Roadkill]

AFAIK, SNCF is pretty heavily subsidised - but what's the problem with that? So is our 'privatised' railway system, and it's pretty obvious which is more efficient!

 

[The Boy]

AFAIK, SNCF is pretty heavily subsidised - but what's the problem with that? So is our 'privatised' railway system, and it's pretty obvious which is more efficient!

There was one of those 'number crunching' things in Private a year ir two back comparing the subsidies given to SNCF and the UK Network of Rail operators/infrastructure maintenance.

Can't remember how much they were claiming was forked out in the UK but it ran into the billions. SNCF made a net annual profit of £30M.

Edit: as an aside, I was in the south of France at the tail end of 2001, and ended up trying to get from marseille to Nice during a general strike. Despite the strike, the unions allowed enough staff to work to allow for a skeleton service. While the train was somewhat cramped when it set off, I was still able to get a seat during the journey. The train left on time, arrived on time and cost less than a comparable journey in the UK.

 

[Cobbles]

More like London to Edinburgh in about an hour ...

But only if you (a) built a new special line (like the TGV one) specially to handle the speed, (b) rerouted the line so that it didn't go through any intermediate stations causing the train to slow down and hang about waiting for passengers and (c) planned the new route so that the train was out of earshot and sight of anyone who might want to protest to the planning authorities.

Add that lot up and it still means about 4 hours by rail so there'd still be no competition on time saving versus air and it'd have to cost a heck of a lot more to recoup the (ginormous) investment.

 

[Roadkill]

Rubbish.

A north-south high-speed line would be expensive, but then so is airport expansion, and I don't hear anyone moaning about the taxpayer having to stump up for that, least of all you.

Meanwhile, I take it you're aware that you can do London-Edinburgh in 4 hours by the fastest GNER service even now? That's flat-out at 140mph, and it doesn't take much nous to work out that with a train travelling at something like double that speed the journey time could be brought down to well under 3 hours.

Meanwhile, if you fly you have to get to the airport (a pain, since they're well out of town with the exception of the miniscule London City Airport), go through security (not something that's going away any time soon), put up with any delays (air travel doesn't exactly have a sparkling record in this respect...) and then collect your stuff and get into town at the other end. You might only spend an hour in the air, but the journey in total can take well over double that.

Already, faster services on the West Coast line have caused a cut in air traffic on the London-Manchester route. It's not hard to see how a decent TGV-style service could take still more custom from north-south routes.

Unfortunately, thanks to our high project costs, the inefficient railway industry and a government that hasn't the bottle to sort the mess out, all of this is unlikely to happen in the forseeable future...

 

[Cobbles]

Meanwhile, if you fly you have to get to the airport (a pain, since they're well out of town with the exception of the miniscule London City Airport), go through security (not something that's going away any time soon), put up with any delays (air travel doesn't exactly have a sparkling record in this respect...) and then collect your stuff and get into town at the other end. You might only spend an hour in the air, but the journey in total can take well over double that.

A nice theory, however you still have to get to Kings Cross and away from Waverley to your destination (no train I know goes door to door). Security takes no more than 15 Mins. and with a business fare (equivalent to an open single in scum class on the train), gate time is 20 minutes.

That means that the dwell time in getting to/from and through the station/airport is broadly similar.

Even if my office was right beside Kings Cross and I lived in a tent on Platform 1 at Waverley station, by your figures, it'll still take twice as long to use the train rather than fly (even if I could justify the additional ticket costs).

 

[Roadkill]

A nice theory, however you still have to get to Kings Cross and away from Waverley to your destination (no train I know goes door to door). Security takes no more than 15 Mins. and with a business fare (equivalent to an open single in scum class on the train), gate time is 20 minutes.

That means that the dwell time in getting to/from and through the station/airport is broadly similar.

In your case, maybe, but not in that of a lot of people. For anyone in, say, the eastern side of London it's a hell of a lot easier and quicker to get to King's Cross than to any of the airports, and that's more true still for people living further out in the sticks.

Even if my office was right beside Kings Cross and I lived in a tent on Platform 1 at Waverley station, by your figures, it'll still take twice as long to use the train rather than fly (even if I could justify the additional ticket costs).

I can well believe it'd take twice as long to use the train as fly now, but I remain unconvinced that'd be the case with a high speed line. It wouldn't be quite as quick as flying, but given the lack of need to go through security on trains, the ability to take more luggage (unless it's a Virgin train, of course...) and the fact that for most people railway stations are easier to get to than airports, it'd still pull in the business.

As for the cost of rail versus flying atm, well, blame the inefficient privatised railway, the government who can't or won't sort the mess out and the fact that aviation gets a nice, big, fat subsidy through aviation fuel being tax-exempt!

 

[Crispy]

Just a brief inquiry, how much are the airlines being let off by on their fuel?

 

[pogofish]

One hell of a lot IIRC!

 

[Crispy]

I want a number damnit! ie. what is the 'true' cost of flying, with the missing tax taken into account?
Oh and do the rail companies pay full whack for their electricity and diesel?

 

[teuchter]

A nice theory, however you still have to get to Kings Cross and away from Waverley to your destination (no train I know goes door to door). Security takes no more than 15 Mins. and with a business fare (equivalent to an open single in scum class on the train), gate time is 20 minutes.

That means that the dwell time in getting to/from and through the station/airport is broadly similar.

Even if my office was right beside Kings Cross and I lived in a tent on Platform 1 at Waverley station, by your figures, it'll still take twice as long to use the train rather than fly (even if I could justify the additional ticket costs).

All nonsense.

I've done the experiment ... on a trip up to Glasgow for the weekend - I got the train, some friends got the plane. We all left work about the same time on a Friday afternoon. I got there first by about 10 mins. Granted they went to Prestwick, but even if they'd have gone to Glasgow airport they'd only have arrived about half an hour earlier. And that was a few years ago; the train journey time is now less.

As regards costs, you have to compare like with like. Compare walk-up plane fare with walk-up train fare, and advance purchase with advance purchase. And don't forget to add on the cost of getting to and from each airport.

And the fact that if you're going by train, you're spending most of the journey in your seat doing whatever you want to do. Not getting on and off shuttle buses, standing in queues, walking along travelators, waiting in more queues, etc, etc.

And obviously there's the guilty conscience about your environmental impact to come to terms with.

 

[teuchter]

I want a number damnit! ie. what is the 'true' cost of flying, with the missing tax taken into account?
Oh and do the rail companies pay full whack for their electricity and diesel?

It depends how much the "missing tax" would be surely ... and because it doesn't exist, one can't say.

I think that rail companies do pay tax on diesel ... but I'm not 100% sure.

But I think it's true to say that the fuel costs make up a high percentage of what a plane ticket costs, whereas the make up a relatively low percentage of the cost of train travel. Mainly because going by train uses much less fuel per passenger mile (and hence creates about 90% less CO2 ppm). So taxing aviation fuel has a bigger impact than taxing rail fuel.

 

[pogofish]

I want a number damnit! ie.

About £9bn according to FOE. Here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3625931.stm

Don't know if that is worldwide or just UK/EU tho.

IIRC, the fuel tax rebate was originally given to the airlines by the US, with the rest of the main economies following suit as a move to compensate for the downturn in trade after 9-11 & has only ever been viewed as a temporary gesture. Although its duration has been extended once already. Don't know when it is up for review again.

BR used to own its own powerstations to drive the main electric lines but IIRC they have now all been closed & the electricity is now bought from the National Grid at commercial rates.

 

[Roadkill]

I think that rail companies do pay tax on diesel ... but I'm not 100% sure.

Yes, they do.

 

[Cobbles]

I've done the experiment ... on a trip up to Glasgow for the weekend - I got the train, some friends got the plane. We all left work about the same time on a Friday afternoon. I got there first by about 10 mins. Granted they went to Prestwick.

Indeed - If I want to go to Paris, I don't go to Beauvais. Glasgow's a poor example as even Glasgow airport is nearer Paisley than the city centre. Edinburgh airport is much closer to the city centre (a four and 3 quarter train trek at best from lunnon).

As regards costs, you have to compare like with like. Compare walk-up plane fare with walk-up train fare, and advance purchase with advance purchase. And don't forget to add on the cost of getting to and from each airport.

As well as the equivalent rail station-anywhere useful costs - about the same for me.

And the fact that if you're going by train, you're spending most of the journey in your seat doing whatever you want to do. Not getting on and off shuttle buses, standing in queues, walking along travelators, waiting in more queues, etc, etc.

As opposed to the snaking queues at Kings Cross waiting to get onto a train that was last cleaned by Mr Stephenson's mum who was also the last person to find a functioning toilet.

And obviously there's the guilty conscience about your environmental impact to come to terms with.

I don't rape the planet by buying bottled water that's been shipped hundreds of miles to grace a trendy backpack or ingesting Mexican grown strawberries so I reckon that air travel's hardly much to worry about - if I was bothered, I could always shell out the trivial few pennies that most of the offsetting agencies reckon an internal flight merits.

 

[teuchter]

Indeed - If I want to go to Paris, I don't go to Beauvais. Glasgow's a poor example as even Glasgow airport is nearer Paisley than the city centre. Edinburgh airport is much closer to the city centre (a four and 3 quarter train trek at best from lunnon).

Ok then....

Oxford St, London to Princes St, Edinburgh:

Oxford Circus tube - Heathrow T3 tube: 1:08 hrs
Walk to check-in desk: 0:10
Check-in time: 0:30
Flight time: 1:30
Get off plane and out of airport: 0:15
Taxi to Princes St: 0:30
=
Total time: 4:03

Oxford Circus tube - Kings Cross tube: 0:06
Walk to platform and get on train: 0:10
Journey time: 4:30
Get off train and walk to Princes St. 0:10
=
Total time: 4:56

Not a big difference if you ask me. Certainly not twice the time as you claim, and given a proper high speed link, rail would easily come out faster.

I don't rape the planet by buying bottled water that's been shipped hundreds of miles to grace a trendy backpack or ingesting Mexican grown strawberries so I reckon that air travel's hardly much to worry about - if I was bothered, I could always shell out the trivial few pennies that most of the offsetting agencies reckon an internal flight merits.

I don't buy bottled water either if I can help it and if I have to I try and make sure it's from the UK. Anyway, two wrongs don't make a right. Going by plane likely represents being responsible for about 10 times as much CO2 emissions as going by train. And I don't buy the whole offsetting thing. It doesn't work on a large scale unless we're all going to live in a forest.

 

[free spirit]

don't forget when you talk about train prices that GNER are / were paying nearly 2 billion quid for their ten year franchise... I'm sure that 2 billion would go a fair way towards building a proper high speed line - maybe London Sheffield Leeds Newcastle Edinburgh Glasgow or something

 

[Cobbles]

Ok then....

Oxford St, London to Princes St, Edinburgh:

Oxford Circus tube - Heathrow T3 tube: 1:08 hrs
Walk to check-in desk: 0:10
Check-in time: 0:30
Flight time: 1:30
Get off plane and out of airport: 0:15
Taxi to Princes St: 0:30
=
Total time: 4:03

QUOTE]

Like I said heathrow express - 15 minutes, Preprinted boarding voucher 0 minutes, airports transit 10 minutes pre board 20 minutes flight 1 hour 15 walk to car 5 minutes into town 17 minutes total 2 hrs. 30 max.

NB most trains take at least 4 hours 45. so it's still twice the length of time.

Another example:

Office to Leeds railway station 45 minutes, train to edinburgh 3 hours 20 mins. 20 minutes to destination - 4 and a half hours.

Taxi to Leeds Bradford airport 20 minutes (no loony everything-but-buses-total-exclusion-zone to circumvent) Through airport 20 minutes flight 48 minutes car at other end 17 minutes - under 2 hours - no contest.

Edinburgh to Southampton - car to airport half an hour from just about anywhere, airport transit 20 minutesflight 1 hour 30 taxi 15 minutes - By train all day.

Internal airlinks have hugely benefitted travel for all sorts of purposes and any attempt to cripple such travel is just London centric Little Enger-lander-ism.

 

[f for fake]

it would really fuck up the train spotters in france, "its coming, i can hear it WOOOOSH fuck did you get its number"