|Quoting Lijnden (Reply 44):|
train or bus without being checked. Recent attacks like the ones in Madrid and London have not triggered any obvious changes in safety protocols. I also know people that took LPG operated cars into the Eurotunnel train last summer without any problem. I think when security will be at the same level as the airline industry, travel time and costs will raise dramatically. (To compare: when I go to a football match the security is better...)
It may not be the case. I was surprised when I travelled from Madrid to Zaragoza on the AVE. My bags were scanned before I jumped into the platform. The same happened between Zaragoza and Barcelona. On top of that, I found the service in the Spanish trains superior to those offered by Deutsche Bahn (which was before my top-quality standard). For some background reference: I lived in Germany and I used DB
a lot (from S-bahn to ICE in both classes). I have also used the french, dutch, swiss and english train systems.
|Quoting AR385 (Reply 46):|
Which way should a hypothethetical medium size third world country with new found riches go then? Should it start building airport infrastructure like crazy or rather develop a top of the line TGV rail system, ceteris paribus? Should it develop both? And if so, what type of formula should it use to determine wether a region gets an airport or a rail node?
Depends on persons movement patterns. You just don't build something you don't or you won't need. Example: persons movements between Monterrey and Laredo may be important and may justify a HST
in the long term, but goods outnumber by far persons movements, so a reliable goods train service may be more important (I am not considering road links here).
Train systems in Europe have demonstrated that a 3-tier model is required: regional services (stopping mostly everywhere), Inter-city services (running long distances between medium sized cities) and HST
(running long distances between only the most important cities). The first two may share the entire track, provided it's double (one track for each direction) AND
the schedule is coordinated so Intercity services can pass regional trains during scheduled stops.
services may share some parts of the first 2 tiers tracks, but they must be built to the standards required by an HST AND
services must be well timed so slow running trains don't delay the faster ones. Additionally, capacity must be built to maximise the usage of the track with room to spare for potential delays. Here in the UK there are capacity problems in many lines into London which could be solved with double decker cars... but many bridges are too low so a double decker won't fit.
Seeing your profile, you may know that infrastructure for the first 2 tiers aren't there in Mexico. I only know of 1 double track system (Mexico-Queretaro) and it's only used for cargo!
|Quoting PHKLM (Reply 47):|
First of all, terrain. Think of the CGH-SDU route in Brazil. This is an excellent route to cover by HST, if it not were for the terrain. Building HST tracks is very expensive because of the limited allowed curve radius and slope gradient. TGV and ICE2 systems have proved these allowances can be reduced significantly today, but terrain is still an important factor.
PHKLM has a very valid point. Again looking at Mexico. The proposed HST
must be routed through QET because a direct line (through TLC
and MLM) would be too expensive due to the mountains. Through QET, Irapuato and La Piedad the terrain is not that rough, and building an HST
will be cheaper (though several kms longer!). Additionally, such a routing would serve another important city pair (MEX
-QET) and would allow for a potential expansion to SLP
there is also an issue with terrain. There must be lots of tunnels between MTY
and SLW if you would link these 2 cities. Tunneling massively in Mexico is technically possible, but it could be expensive given the resilience requeriments for earthquakes.
Rail systems are meant to be mass transportation systems. You just can't outnumber the capacity you have with a train with a plane. Mexico may require more airports, but let me focus on rail systems:
- Some metropolitan areas or industrial corridors require regional trains (e.g. MTY
and the Bajio corridor from QET to BJX). Competitors: coach companies (hey! you have 3 of the largest coach companies, fleetwise, in the world in Mexico! Think of ADO, IAMSA et al.)
- Some city pairs would benefit from HST
. Anything south or east of MEX
would be a nightmare due to terrain.
- Any train system should be developed using synergies with other transport systems, i.e. train systems work as a HUB system while coaches are more P2P systems.
JMM -A319,A320,A321,A333,A343,AT45,AT72,B462,B722,B737s from -200 to -800,B744,B752,B762,B763,BE35,DC91,F70,Ju52,MD80,S3