Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Impact Of High Speed Rail  
User currently offlineVincewy From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 767 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8071 times:

(If this is too OT, please move to unrelated)

In the past few years, we have seen quite a few countries interested in building High Speed Rail lines, connecting major cities,besides aviation, I'm also railroad fanatics, and am very excited about many countries introducing high speed rail (HSR) to help alleviate congested roads, airports, and air space.

It may seem like HSR will be in direct competition with airlines, in the long terms, however, I think airlines and railroads can complement each other by connecting to cities not served with HSR by air, imagine if UK has good HSR network that can connect people from LHR to Wales, Midland, and even up to Scotland, I know there's Eurostar, but many more slots can free up if people can connect with HSR.

More countries are planning HSR (Taiwan is almost done and will open later this year), like Russia (Moscow-St Petersburg), Turkey (Istanbul-Ankara), Mexico (D.F.-Leon-Guadalajara), China (massive network proposed), I'm sure many more will be ready to adopt such transport.

75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7999 times:

Well in Japan HSR has created headaches for airlines.

If you are in Tokyo and need to do business in Nagoya or Osaka, your best bet is to take the Shinkansen. You can leave from Tokyo or Shinagawa and be in central Nagoya in just about an hour and central Osaka in about 1.5 hours with no security checks, no baggage checks and no hassles.

Tokyo has two airports NRT and HND. NRT is one hour north of central Tokyo and HND is about 20 min from Shinjuku ward in Tokyo. You can fly from HND to ITM in Osaka but you can't get from Tokyo to Nagoya by plane. You could until the Shinkansen line was built in the 1960s.

I would take a plane for flights from NGO to FUK as they end up being similar in price to the shinkansen but the time is shortened.

There is a point where HSR has limits and air is needed.

Japan is currently developing a maglev that will go from Tokyo to Osaka and replace the current Tokaido Shinkansen up to that point. It would reduce the time traveled from Tokyo to Nagoya from one hour to 30 minutes and Tokyo to Osaka to 1 hour. (MLX01 Maglev Test vehicle homepage)

Note: There are flights from NGO to NRT, but they are for international connections only. They leave from NGO's international wing.

Did the TGV and the ICE change the landscape of domestic air travel in France and Germany?



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineDTManiac From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 689 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7960 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 1):
Did the TGV and the ICE change the landscape of domestic air travel in France and Germany?

Well, with regard to the travel time the ICE is certainly an alternative between some city pairs since Germany isnt that big. Just have a look at the new track which was built between Cologne and Frankfurt that reduced the travel time to something under one hour.

However, from my experience the trains can hardly compete in terms of pricing. For example, a friend of mine who is in Berlin is going to visit me this weekend. I looked for the cheapest option and it was Lufthansa (140€) compared to the train which cost like 180€ or so.

You probably can get a good bargain if you book well in advance, but with all the low cost carriers around and Lufthansa trying to respond with their 99€ r/t fares it is often cheaper to take the plane.

One important reason might be "Eco-Tax" on electricity and other kinds of energy the "Bahn" (German Railway) has to pay. From what I know jet fuel is not taxed in that way (however, I dont know the reason) what gives the airlines advantages.

Regards

Frederik



Gig 'em Aggies!!!
User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4537 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7933 times:

Quoting DTManiac (Reply 2):
Just have a look at the new track which was built between Cologne and Frankfurt that reduced the travel time to something under one hour.

Its nice. I would take the ICE from FRA to Wuppertal & back when I go there. Before the new track was built it was the slow route along the river and it would take nearly 3 hours. 2hr 45 min I think. Its still a very nice ride. Much more relaxing and comfortable than air travel.



Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlineVunz From Netherlands, joined Jun 2001, 360 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7933 times:

After the TGV line from Paris to Brussels was completed AF ceased operations from CDG to BRU. It takes 75 minutes from Paris Nord to Brussels Midi and there's simply no way an airline can compete on that route, including transfer, security and other hassles.

The TGV line from Amsterdam to Paris is due to open next year, but since AF and KL are so well interconnected in their network and the distance is greater flying will probably stay the easiest way.


User currently offlineMBJ2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7917 times:

The biggest problem of the ICE in Germany is in my oppinion that it cannot be even called high speed train, MUC - FRA is so lame and such a shame, those average speeds were reached in UK some 150 years ago.

With such an alternative flying can only win Sad

... I guess the TGV is a totally different beast.



Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlineDTManiac From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 689 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7901 times:

Quoting Indy (Reply 3):
Before the new track was built it was the slow route along the river and it would take nearly 3 hours.

Yes. That was a pain in the a**. I had take the train through the Rhine valley every week when I was doing army services. The interesting thing was that I took several kinds of trains (InterCityExpress, InterCity, InterRegio) and they all took almost the same time to Dusseldorf since the Rhine valley track is speed restricted.

In this context there is another thing to add. Although the ICE can go quite fast weird routings seem to kill the time advantage. I went from Dortmund to Munich on the ICE a few years ago and it took me more than six hours. The train went trough Düsseldorf, Cologne (the slow Rhine valley again), Stuttgart and so on. This is definitely not the most direct routing and six hours is well possible by car (A45 and A3). I would prefer the plane the next time.

Frederik



Gig 'em Aggies!!!
User currently offlineA319114 From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 541 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7891 times:

Quoting Vunz (Reply 4):

The TGV line from Amsterdam to Paris is due to open next year, but since AF and KL are so well interconnected in their network and the distance is greater flying will probably stay the easiest way.

KLM is actually involved with the exploitation of the HSL (High speed line) between Amsterdam and Paris, so I guess at least some flights between AMS and CDG will be replaced by trains.

Also, even though the line itself may open next year, the trains were ordered to late so we'll have to wait even longer untill we can catch the high speed train to Paris.

BTW, Centrair, that Maglev test train looks incredibly cool!



Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation
User currently offlineChase From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1054 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7756 times:

A train has to get pax from point A to point B. An airplane has to get pax from point A to point B, and lift them 5 miles into the sky. Consequently I believe an airplane will always be less efficient economically than a train. Okay, today trains have to deal with more friction, but that will cease to be the case with more widespread adoption of maglev.
Since train travel generally has more lax security and "arrive X minutes before departure" requirements, I think that on routes shorter than 500 miles or so trains will gradually replace airplanes, especially as trains get faster. For a while. Then, the security and advance arrival requirements of train travel will creep up as it becomes more popular, to the point where these requirements are the same at the train station as they are at the airport.
I would love to see a highspeed train set up to run IND-MDW-ORD-MKE, with these stations set up inside the secure area of the airports, and no other stops on the line.
Just my $0.02.

[Edited 2006-02-07 16:06:27]

User currently offlineFlyibaby From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1017 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7684 times:

The problem in the US is no one wants to pay for it, in addition to the fact that no one wants to keep their car parked and take public transportation to work, ect. rather than drive. Personally I would rather front the money now to explore a proposed "highway" of HSR tracks and not worry about widening anymore interstates for cars.

User currently offlineFlying Belgian From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7648 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

My bet is that the plane will always be fatser than the train on the AMS-CDG run.
That said, the Thalys has placed BRU in a tricky position and it will hinder BRU's future the next years. The developpement plans in North-West Europe is very promising and a company like Thaly is increasing its profit and load factor every year.

FB.



Life is great at 41.000 feet...
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7630 times:

Eurostar has 71% of the combined rail/air business between London and Paris, and something like 63% of the combined rail/air business between London and Brussels. I think that says a lot about high-speed rail travel, when it is finally put into place.

Andy


User currently offlineDartland From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The US forray into high speed trains has been a disaster. The Acela project for the northeast corrider was a great idea. It is prime territory for high speed trains:
1) Short distances
2) HEAVY air traffic and congestion leading to lots of delays
3) HEAVY people traffic between cities, including much business travel

So what happened? Amtrak and the Canadian/French consortium designed Acela. FANTASTIC train from personal comfort perspective -- just not fast! Since the distances are fairly close, the trains still leave full every weekday, but they've been plagued with problems and literally only shave 10-30 min off travel times from the Metroliner, primarily beceause of fewer stops!

Is it a success? From one perspective, yes. It certainly moves a lot of people, but time-wise it still takes longer than flying assuming no delays, even given transport time to the airport. Given its cost is roughly equiavelent to the shuttles, most business travelers still opt to fly. From a congestion standpoint, it hasn't done much since DL and US still have hourly shuttles to connect the 3-cities -- but one could argue things would be worse w/o the Acela.

Anyways, that's my perspective. I personally love the train, but if it were a legitimate high speed train with higher frequency, I'm sure you'd fine less demand for the shuttles and the potential to ease air congestion (which while I hate to see DL or US loose a shuttle, the net benefit to all airports involved and all airlines flying from those airports due to that much less congestion can't be a bad thing).


User currently offlineCongaboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 352 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7547 times:

Quoting Dartland (Reply 12):
Is it a success? From one perspective, yes. It certainly moves a lot of people, but time-wise it still takes longer than flying assuming no delays, even given transport time to the airport.

No delays means flying in perfect conditions on Saturday morning. For all its faults, as Dartland points out, taking Amtrak still works better IMHO on high density city pairs within 300 miles. And I agree with Chase, it would be great to see the Amtrak MetroLiner/Acela model in markets like MKE-CHI-IND, CLT-ATL-CHA-BNA, maybe even HOU-DAL-OKC where you could open the train up through low-density areas.

I for one am really tired of the whole business travel ritual when flying short sectors...the stress factor is worth alot, and increasing in value as fuel prices rise, lines get longer, and service from airlines gets even worse.



"Joey, you like movies about gladiators?"
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7547 times:

Personally, I think the US needs to get its head out of the sand and start connecting airports within 100-250 miles of eachother where it can save time vs. air travel - it won't work everywhere though. The airport capacity benefit is huge from this in high density short hop routes (BOS-JFK, PHL-PIT, MCI-STL, ORD-MKE, SAN-LAX, LAX-LAS, PHX-LAS, DFW-AUS, AUS-IAH, SEA-PDX, MSP-ORD etc...). Will people use it? Only if it's fast enough. The technology for interline is already there. In this day and age it doesn't have to be rail either. Othe uses could be across wide states with an airport at each end - i.e... Rapid City and Sioux Falls with air service to both those airport eliminating the need for essential air service, you could cross that flat as a pancake span with Maglev in about an hour.

[Edited 2006-02-07 17:50:52]

User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4234 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7515 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
Personally, I think the US needs to get its head out of the sand and start connecting airports within 100-250 miles of eachother where it can save time vs. air travel - it won't work everywhere though. The airport capacity benefit is huge from this in high density short hop routes (BOS-JFK, PHL-PIT, MCI-STL, ORD-MKE, SAN-LAX, LAX-LAS, PHX-LAS, DFW-AUS, AUS-IAH, SEA-PDX, MSP-ORD etc...). Will people use it? Only if it's fast enough. The technology for interline is already there. In this day and age it doesn't have to be rail either. Othe uses could be across wide states with an airport at each end - i.e... Rapid City and Sioux Falls with air service to both those airport eliminating the need for essential air service, you could cross that flat as a pancake span with Maglev in about an hour.

I totally agree and couldn't have said it better myself. BOS-NYC and NYC-DCA are covered very well by the Acela. There has been a bill in congress for years that has enjoyed wide veto proof bipartisan support that should be passed, but for some reason it never gets brought up in committee despite the wide support to start High Speed rail investing. This is one area where Europe and Japan have the upper hand on use, and since most of these trains would be powered off Electricity, Oil consumption would drop as a result. I don't see any negatives outside of startup costs.


User currently onlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5790 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7473 times:

For those who may not be aware, here is the California government agency that is currently working on High Speed Rail plans in the state. Route selection is nearing completion, connecting in the first phase Los Angeles with San Francisco. The biggest remaining problem will be getting voter approval for bond sales to build the system.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

For Los Angeles to Las Vegas a different group is working on a maglev system. The Federal govenment is currently working on environmental studies.
http://www.maglev-train.com/home.asp

Both routes being studied would serve corridors that currently see high numbers of short flights and auto traffic.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7458 times:

Quoting Dartland (Reply 12):
literally only shave 10-30 min off travel times from the Metroliner, primarily beceause of fewer stops!

Actually, the Metroliner and Acela don't run together. The slower trains are the Regionals, the Metroliner were the old limited/express services before the Acela entered the market and also took over for the Acela when they had the brake trouble. The main problems with the speed of the lines up there is the fact that the tracks are ultra curved and the FRA won't allow Amtrak to run the Acelas at their maximum capabilities. It certainly isn't the trains, because while they are heavier than the TGVs they are based on, they still have the ability to do around 170 mph



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineOryx From Germany, joined Nov 2005, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7434 times:

Quoting MBJ2000 (Reply 5):
The biggest problem of the ICE in Germany is in my oppinion that it cannot be even called high speed train, MUC - FRA is so lame and such a shame, those average speeds were reached in UK some 150 years ago.



Quoting MBJ2000 (Reply 5):
... I guess the TGV is a totally different beast.

The railway system in Germany has three heavy disadvantages compared to France:

1. A very dispersed population. Meaning you need to buld something like 3000km of tracks to reach only the biggest cities. In France with the Line from CDG to Lyon you have already covvered a big part of the market.

2. The terrain in the sothern two thirds of germany is not easy at all. It costs something like 20 million euro to build on kilometre of track in the south compared to 10 million in the north. The french system is a lot less complicated partly due to easier terrain (nearly no tunnels etc.)

3. No central government. In France it was for a long time sufficient that the parliament in Paris desided about new railroads. In Germany you have 16 Laender who want to take part in the discussion. This leads to very long head times, unsystematic construction of lines and unnecessary stops. On the Line from Cologne to FRA the land of Hessian made Berlin pay for a sidelink to Wiesbaden and the land of Rheinland Pfalz is responsible for two an additional stop only 15 km from the previos station.

We have a construction program running until 2015 (officially). Avverages will be a lot better than. Already for the soccer champianship we will se a lot of improvement like Munich -- Nuremberg or Berlin -- Leipzig in 1 hour 15 minutes and MUC -- FRA in 3 hours 15 minutes.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12899 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7383 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm a big fan of intermodal transportation. In other words, do like at FRA where the ICE connects to the airport. Or a big HND style bus terminal. And soon LHR will have high speed through the chunnel. Not to mention its great when local buses and subway feed an airport as part of a well designed system. (Hint LAX! hint!) The more connections, the more usefull transportation is.

Quoting Chase (Reply 8):
onsequently I believe an airplane will always be less efficient economically than a train.

Less fuel efficient yes. Economical? Depends on what all that land the track is sitting on could have been used for. While moving freight by train is much more economical than a truck, the Alemeda cooridor here in Los Anglese isn't being fully utilized due to the effectiveness of trucking. There is always that trade off. I'd like to see more high speed here in the US and loved the ICE when I visited Germany. But...

Quoting Dartland (Reply 12):
So what happened? Amtrak and the Canadian/French consortium designed Acela. FANTASTIC train from personal comfort perspective -- just not fast! Since the distances are fairly close, the trains still leave full every weekday, but they've been plagued with problems and literally only shave 10-30 min off travel times from the Metroliner, primarily beceause of fewer stops!

That is the problem with US high speed train. Acela was designed to go a little faster on existing tracks. In Europe, many of the tracks are dedicated (certainly on the more successfull runs).

There are only a few runs in the US where a train is economical due to the large distances. (Recall, I live in California, where a city 120 miles away is almost considered a suburb of the one I live/work in.) BOS-NYC-WashingtonDC (with stops in Phil and Baltimore?) is the obvious one. (Better track is required. Better=straight off grade track) LAX-ONT-Ivanpah-LAS is potentially another. There is a dream of a SAN-union statioin (Los angeles)-San Jose-San Fran. But oh... getting the track is going to cost Billions! And politics are going to add diversions to Lancaster, Fresno, etc. Are there a few other runs? Yes. But I just don't see Florida-Northeast via HST. That would be an all day or overnight run.

Quoting Skymonster (Reply 11):
Eurostar has 71% of the combined rail/air business between London and Paris, and something like 63% of the combined rail/air business between London and Brussels. I think that says a lot about high-speed rail travel, when it is finally put into place.

Really? Without the final high speed legs to London yet completed? Wow! I'd like to find out more, do you have a link Skymonster? I'm facinated by how they'll increase the chunnel traffic via better controls and feeder track.  Smile While Eurotunnel the corporation has financial issues, the Chunnel is obviously paying off in major economic advances for both England and France.

Now when will LHR get its new runway?  duck 

Personally, the US right now just needs better subway systems for their cities. E.g., the 2nd ave subway in NYC, Full Wilshire line in LA (to airport, w/green line), DC subway to IAD, etc.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7342 times:

Quoting Oryx (Reply 18):
1. A very dispersed population. Meaning you need to buld something like 3000km of tracks to reach only the biggest cities. In France with the Line from CDG to Lyon you have already covvered a big part of the market.

Actually, France is a much larger country area wise, but has 14 million fewer people. I mean, Paris-Nice is as long as Flensburg-Munich and you still have much more of France to the North (not to mention that France is significantly wider). Beyond that, big cities in Germany are often located on straight lines from other big cities, while they are in different corners and locations in France. I actually think that one of the big problems is that Germany has less space to put new tracks into its already impressive rail infrastructure.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8212 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7314 times:

Quoting Dartland (Reply 12):
So what happened? Amtrak and the Canadian/French consortium designed Acela. FANTASTIC train from personal comfort perspective -- just not fast! Since the distances are fairly close, the trains still leave full every weekday, but they've been plagued with problems and literally only shave 10-30 min off travel times from the Metroliner, primarily beceause of fewer stops!

The "failure" of the Acela has nothing to do with the trains themselves. The problem was that everyone wanted a piece of benefits but no one wanted to pay for it. Amtrak certainly wanted faster trains but didn't have the money. The government didn't want to give the money. And the local authorities, although all want the train to stop in their town along the way, none would let the train travel at it's designed high speed though their town. So we ended up with an underfunded rail project with too many stops and not enough speed.

The pathetic thing is that it's still the best thing we have in the US and as proof of it's potential, it has been stealing market share in the BOS-NYC corridor, from airlines since the day of its inception.


User currently onlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5790 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7262 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 19):
And politics are going to add diversions to Lancaster, Fresno, etc.

Diversions to Fresno? Sorry I'll disgree, Fresno is not a diversion.

Adding Lancaster/Palmdale was partially a political move to get a stop caused by getting a route decision not to tunnel directly under the Grapevine and Tejon Pass.

In fact the early reports said more passengers would use the service if it used the I-5/Grapevine route vs. Lancaster. But the costs of tunneling in the Grapevine became a reason to shift toward Lancaster.

But Fresno is a different story. In fact from the earliest planning, the HSR studies have said the highest passenger revenue would come from LA to SF riders, with the 2nd highest revenues from LA/SF to Central Valley passengers, followed by San Diego to LA, then Sacramento to LA.

If we look at it, there are 3 basic routes that make sense in California between LA and SF.

The coastal route similiar to the Highway 101. But the difficulty of creating long, flat, straight stretches through the Coast Range allowing high speeds eliminate that route quickly. Additionally, limited population centers along that alignment.

The Central Valley along the I-5 alignment. Long flat stretches of vacant land available for high speed but no large population centers along the route. So that would result in billions being spent for something serving only the Southern California to Bay Area passengers.

The Central Valley along the Highway 99 corridor. Long, flat stretches available allowing high speeds. Additionally several population centers of approx 1 million people each could also be served, reducing auto traffic which would cut smog and decrease the money needed to be spent on highways and airports in California's fastest growing region.

The mileage difference in the 2 Central Valley alignments is small, adding only minutes. But the additional passenger counts provide a gain that is considered worth it.

The real political battle seems to the route into the Bay Area. One group wants to enter from the south through San Jose then to the rest of the region. The other wants to enter through the East Bay with splits to other parts of the Bay Area.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineVs25 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7218 times:

From a UK perspective we have a lot to gain from HSR, especially the maglevs. We're a small country and most domestic flights are under an hour. With a maglev going from London to Brimingham, then Manchester, then crossing over to Leeds, Middlesbrough, Newcastle and then up to Edinburgh and back over to Glasgow. A strange route, but one that connects the majority of the big UK cities together.

Manchester would become 30 minutes from London, which puts it on the same time as Kingston (where I live) in South West London. Manchester would become commutable to London. Newcastle would be 1.5 hours instead of 3 hours. Probably not good for house prices up north, but it would do wonders for the traffic on our congested roads and the economy.

Plans I've seen would also connect the track into LHR and it would stop at BHX and MAN along the way. You could get on a train in Leeds and be in LHR in an hour. Flights between LHR and MAN would cease to exist, and it would probably kill MME and NCL to LHR too. EDI and GLA would still be quicker by plane, but not by much when you add in the usual airport times.

I'm all for it. I know it would cost a fortune and we Brits aren't known for our "grand projets". It would take some act of God or major act of parliament to put and that's before we even think about the NIMBYs throughout the whole country. 30 counties and millions of people within a couple of miles of the track. That's a lot of NIMBYs to complain.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7164 times:

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 16):
For those who may not be aware, here is the California government agency that is currently working on High Speed Rail plans in the state. Route selection is nearing completion, connecting in the first phase Los Angeles with San Francisco. The biggest remaining problem will be getting voter approval for bond sales to build the system.

Screw Rail...That's the Union favorite. Operators with endless compensation and a small army to keep the rails in good condition. Installation cost is on par with Maglev because they would need multiple new straight sections that don't exist today in California.

This is the answer...

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 16):
For Los Angeles to Las Vegas a different group is working on a maglev system. The Federal govenment is currently working on environmental studies.

High installation cost, but only about 10-15% more than rail and low O&M cost. No vehicle operators and a staff of 20 for every 100 miles. Rails is about 40 per 100. Maglev also uses the highway right of way meaning you don't have to fight with the rail companies. None of this stop every 5 miles crap either. Connect airports, or don't bother with it. You lose any potential gains if you stop more than once in a 100 mile segment.


25 LTBEWR : I have traveled by rail in Europe a number of times, including the French TGV, and loved it. Rail is a lot better in Europe for when one is going city
26 N1120A : Actually, they go much faster than that, even in the UK
27 Jcavinato : Two weeks ago I rode the Shanghai MAGLEV. 20 miles in 8.1 minutes. A gradual speed build up and slow down, but at its top (264 mph) I could have ridde
28 Beertrucker : Acutally there is one more thing you forgot about the Acela. It is not the curves so much as it is other trains slowing it down. After you leave New
29 Post contains images Lightsaber : really? Ok. I take back my Fresno comment. But can you provide a link. I'm only seeing 66 pax/day on faremeasure (yes, imperfect...) While I would ex
30 Mir : Try 198mph (300km/h). That's what the TGV can do, as can the newer ICE trains and the newer Shinkansen (Shinkansen is the fastest in the world since
31 RJ111 : In test conditions they got TGV up to 300+ MPH. Would never be feasible in regular passenger service in the near future, but impressive anyway.
32 Post contains links FATFlyer : Don't forget FAT and rest of the Valley doesn't have low fare airline service within California. So much of the current in-state travel occurs in pri
33 Moparman : On the Acela in the Northeast. The person who said that the rails are keeping down the speed is absolutely correct in his view. I recently had the cha
34 JonnyGT : Mopar, the average speed of Acela during it's entire trip from Washington to Boston is 68 miles per hour. Hardly, impressive. What really needs to hap
35 TGV : This really depends on the pricing policy of the rail company. From this point of view DB (Germany) and SNCF (French Railways) have had quite differe
36 TPEcanuck : Thanks to everyone for all the interesting comments and insight in this thread. I wanted to turn the conversation to a slightly more narrow focus and
37 UpperDeck79 : You are exaggerating quite a bit... Tokyo-Nagoya: 1 h 42 min (Shinkansen Nozomi) Tokyo-Osaka: 2 h 36 min (Shinkansen Nozomi) And in Osaka, Shinkansen
38 VV701 : The lowest cost Virgin Trains (monopoly) London-Manchester fare works out at over 0.40 pounds sterling per mile. The Virgin Atlantic LHR-LAX advanced
39 Mandrake : It is not necessary to always move people by train or plane! It is not people who need to be moved from points A to B - it is their ideas, responses,
40 HKGKaiTak : IMHO rail can never replace the "urban" airports you describe here. No politician will ever close an airport as flying is always more "sexy" than rai
41 MarshalN : It's always very frustrating when you take the Acela and in CT the train visibly slows down. It's a shame, because you know the thing can go much fast
42 N1120A : The thing is, Virgin Trains doesn't have to absorb infrastructure costs (Network Rail handles that) and, like you said, has a monopoly on service. Th
43 JayinKitsap : What I noticed with the Shinkansen was they kept things simple. Clean but unfancy stations certainly at the boarding platform. What no granite and Mar
44 UpperDeck79 : And another thing is the frequency. You might have flights Tokyo-Osaka every half an hour, but the Shinkansen runs every 7th minute!!! (And before an
45 Av8rDAL : Have to share my ICE experiences: Last March (2005). I needed to go from Cologne to Berlin. ICE was 90 EUR and 4 hours. Germanwings was 60 EUR and 1 h
46 RayChuang : Actually, right now it appears only the routes between Tokyo and Osaka, Paris and Nice, and Paris and London is where high-speed rail can successfully
47 Vincewy : Wow, 40+ replies once I return and great info too. Regarding aforementioned projects in US, I think the first HSL they need is Boston-New York-DC, the
48 Post contains images Iwok : And the federal govt and special interests will be performing environmental studies for ever. Once the greens get involved, the train track will have
49 Post contains images Glareskin : AMS-CDG could not become a success IMO. The price for a ticket is too high, the travelling time too long and there are too many stops. If Ryanair or
50 Post contains links TPEcanuck : Hi HKG and Vincewy, I think you are both right, but...! In terms of politicians closing down airports...see Meigs Field in Chicago for an example. Ma
51 TGV : Don't forget Spain HSL, with Madrid-Sevila "true" HSL (in service since 1992 using French TGV trains), and Madrid-Barcelona also "true" HSL (graduall
52 Cadet93 : The ACELA has problems.....break downs happen...... I was on my NJ TRANSIT train the other day. An ACELA was broken down just outside of Rahway. So, t
53 Post contains links Aircellist : There are two TGV studies around Montréal, one on Québec - Windsor, going through Montréal, probably Ottawa, Toronto, and, possibly, after Windsor,
54 Post contains links Oryx : There are currently five lines where the ICE goes over 200 km/h: Hamburg -- Berlin 230 km/h Hannover -- Berlin 250 km/h Hannover -- Wuerzburg 250 km/
55 NumberTwelve : TCV: "This really depends on the pricing policy of the rail company. From this point of view DB (Germany) and SNCF (French Railways) have had quite d
56 Oryx : Thinking about the above said: High-speed trains are competitve if they have dedicated tracks to make sure they are not is not slowed down by freighte
57 Post contains links and images NumberTwelve : Even Lufthansa has to admit that there are routes within Germany where the train is the better alternative. So LH cancelled bigger number of flights o
58 Glareskin : The good thing is that you can check your luguage in Stuttgart for your intl. trips. It's very convenient!
59 Post contains images NumberTwelve : Yes, thats the advantage of AIRail - but on the other hand, Frankfurt airport has direct long distance railway station and a Check In (Check In "T") d
60 Lightsaber : Thanks for the information. You've changed my mind. (yes possible on a.net) That's it? Grrr... This is sad. I remember getting in and out of airports
61 Post contains links FlyLondon : Not a new station exactly but redeveloping an old one to become St Pancras International along with the redevelopment of the whole St Pancras/Kings C
62 Chase : Good point. To clarify my post, I was only talking about operating a trip, not constructing the infrastructure or acquiring ROW. You're absolutely ri
63 Cloudy : There are several problems with high-speed trains which will make it hard for me to believe they to replace a significant portion of air traffic, exce
64 RJ111 : A TGV traveling form Lyon-Paris needs to sell about 50 full fare business seats to break even, they have a much lower break even point than a 747. Al
65 Aeroluxpt : Luxembourg will be connected with Paris in about 2 years
66 Vs25 : RayChuang, the Eurostar is moving to a new terminal at St Pancras (just beside King's Cross) in the north of London. The high speed line goes under SE
67 Vincewy : It'll go to only Taipei Main Station, later on, they'll extend the line north to Nangang (Nangang is developing a science park), however you'll soon
68 TGV : I was only reacting to DTManiac figures. Apparently he was not able to get good fares on DB for the planned trip. Happy to know that DB has good fare
69 Post contains images VinnieWinnie : I only really know 2 HST lines which compete with airlines: Brussels-London and Brussels-Paris. Whilst they obviously compete against eachother they a
70 Glacote : Random thoughts in no particular order - high speed train is very competitive up to 3h, unbeatable under 2h of time. City-center to city-center, no ch
71 Cloudy : If you actually read my post you would understand that I was talking about high speed rail's potential to replace air travel. I don't happen to think
72 TGV : I did, and I agree with you that the potential part of the air travel that can be replaced by High speed Rail is limited to some specific cases, as i
73 Saxman66 : Trains are alot more flexible than you think. Watch out when you say it can only connect 2 or 3 cities. It can connect dozons of cities. Not just the
74 Aircellist : On a side note: except where there are LCC on the same routes, how have the fares progressed in the USA since deregulation?
75 Post contains links Vincewy : Also worth mentioning, if any Portuguese members know any progress on their HSL. They are linking Lisboa and Oporto, possibly Lisboa-Madrid later, how
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Financial Impact Of Aug Disruption To Ba posted Wed Sep 6 2006 01:48:20 by Cusaeng
DTW High Speed/low Speed Track, What Is It? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 03:40:08 by Falstaff
The Impact Of Increased 757 Oceanic Ops posted Thu Jul 13 2006 21:56:52 by BlueShamu330s
Impact Of BOS Big Dig Tunnel Closure On Logan Ops posted Wed Jul 12 2006 22:58:28 by BWI757
High Speed Ferry To JFK? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 18:09:06 by FlyBoeing
Impact Of Late Air NZ 777s posted Thu Nov 3 2005 15:29:32 by V2fix
Negative Impact Of No-frills On Eastern Europe posted Mon Oct 24 2005 11:33:12 by Orion737
Economic Impact Of Airbus On The US Economy posted Mon Oct 17 2005 18:42:00 by Flying-Tiger
Impact Of DL Filing Bankruptcy. posted Mon Sep 12 2005 18:41:24 by B707Stu
Impact Of Mandala B732 Crash On OzJet posted Wed Sep 7 2005 13:16:19 by 6thfreedom