Eusless
 

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 12/03/2010 20:13, d wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:08:38 +0000
Roland wrote:
And there's more to France than Paris, and more to the Continent
than France.

Hopefully Euseless Eurostar will lose their monopoly on international
services and we'll get a proper range of through services from St P.

There hasn't been an monopoly on international rail services since the
start of the year.

There's something very like a monopoly unless they make a decision to allow
other rolling stock to be used...

Paul S

Eusless
 

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Basil Jet wrote:

Shouldn't the high speed line run from St Pancras, as an extension (via
reversal) of the Kent domestics?

Yes, of course it should. Did you really need to ask?

Just as it needs to go via - via, not also to - Heathrow. And (eventually)
run London - Brum - Manchester - Newcastle, not have two lines up each
side of the country. All completely bloody obvious, and of course also
completely beyond the grasp of everyone making the decisions.

tom

--
I fought the law and the law won.

Eusless
 

In message , at 21:39:43 on
Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Paul Scott remarked:
There hasn't been an monopoly on international rail services since the
start of the year.

There's something very like a monopoly unless they make a decision to allow
other rolling stock to be used...

Didn't they do that too?
--
Roland Perry

Eusless
 

On Mar 12, 9:40*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Basil Jet wrote:
Shouldn't the high speed line run from St Pancras, as an extension (via
reversal) of the Kent domestics?

Yes, of course it should. Did you really need to ask?

Just as it needs to go via - via, not also to - Heathrow. And (eventually)
run London - Brum - Manchester - Newcastle, not have two lines up each
side of the country. All completely bloody obvious, and of course also
completely beyond the grasp of everyone making the decisions.

"All completely bloody obvious..." - ???

And then some more ???

Er, why is it all so "bloody obvious" - how so?

There's a huge amount of documentation in the overall HS2 report, with
a fair amount about the various route options. Whilst it's not going
to happen, it seems to be a slightly more rigorous exercise than
merely shooting from the hip.

Eusless
 

On Mar 12, 10:30*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 21:39:43 on
Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Paul Scott remarked:

There hasn't been an monopoly on international rail services since the
start of the year.

There's something very like a monopoly unless they make a decision to allow
other rolling stock to be used...

Didn't they do that too?

I don't think the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission (IGC)
has actually made any changes to the requirements yet. I think it was
just Eurotunnel saying that they don't see the need for the
requirement to have splitable passenger trains - but whilst Eurotunnel
might have a strong position in terms of pushing for the change, they
don't have the final say.

And there are other requirements aside from that one - I think there's
a load of fire resistance stuff. How many modifications an ICE set
would need I've no idea, though my guess is that it'd need to be
custom built from scratch rather than having it retrofitted.

Simply because the press keeps on coming out with stuff saying that DB
are on the cusp of running Chunnel services don't mean it is so...
There's a few entities interested in keeping this idea ticking over in
the public consciousness, such as Eurotunnel and HS1 who both want the
extra traffic and hence extra income (the masterplan being that the
government will flog HS1 soon, so talking up its traffic growth
potential makes some sense).

Eusless
 

Mizter T wrote:

Er, why is it all so "bloody obvious" - how so?

Because having a 120 mile HSL from the northwest and a 50 mile HSL from the
southeast both terminating in NW1 less than half a mile from each other is
totally retarded.

In fact, forget the reversal. There is not much in the Polygon Road/Brill
Place area that wouldn't be improved by a wrecking ball. Build the new
through station stretching between the north end of Euston and the north end
of St Pancras. Extend all Kent Domestics forward to the north, so that the
existing Euston would be big enough for the remaining high speed trains to
the north without being extended sideways over Cardington Street. I suspect
that to get the new through platforms flat you would have to sever
Mornington Street, but that's no big deal.

The current plan mostly involves the demolition of hotels and a closed tube
station entrance, which would not lose votes in what is probably now a
marginal constituency, whereas threatening to demolish half of Somerstown
would. The current plan is a NIMBE plan (Negligable Impact on Marginal
Before Election). It's all about the election, not about transport.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

Eusless
 

On 12/03/2010 21:39, Paul Scott wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 12/03/2010 20:13, d wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:08:38 +0000
Roland wrote:
And there's more to France than Paris, and more to the Continent
than France.

Hopefully Euseless Eurostar will lose their monopoly on international
services and we'll get a proper range of through services from St P.

There hasn't been an monopoly on international rail services since the
start of the year.

There's something very like a monopoly unless they make a decision to allow
other rolling stock to be used...

How many people have had their application to use s TSI-compliant train
rejected?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Eusless
 

In message . li, at
13:06:48 on Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Tom Anderson
remarked:
The sixth thing that's obvious is that connections from Heathrow to
Europe have to be frequent (two an hour?), because people won't move
from plane to train if they have to wait two hours for it.

Where is this apparently single point called "Europe"?

The other day I posted a list of ten separate destinations served in a
couple of hours from the much smaller airport, East Midlands.

You might delight everyone with 2tph to Paris, but what of the dozens of
other places they might want to be going instead?
--
Roland Perry

Eusless
 

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 12/03/2010 21:39, Paul Scott wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 12/03/2010 20:13, d wrote:

There hasn't been an monopoly on international rail services since
the start of the year.

There's something very like a monopoly unless they make a decision
to allow other rolling stock to be used...

How many people have had their application to use s TSI-compliant
train rejected?

How many have applied? I think it's all media speculation so far, that was
certainly what came out in the discussion after all the 'DB to run to
London' stories a few months ago.

I'm pretty sure the rules haven't been relaxed yet, even if it is thought
likely that they will be at some stage...

Paul S

Eusless
 

On Mar 13, 2:14*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message . li, at
13:06:48 on Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Tom Anderson
remarked:

The sixth thing that's obvious is that connections from Heathrow to
Europe have to be frequent (two an hour?), because people won't move
from plane to train if they have to wait two hours for it.

Where is this apparently single point called "Europe"?

The other day I posted a list of ten separate destinations served in a
couple of hours from the much smaller airport, East Midlands.

You might delight everyone with 2tph to Paris, but what of the dozens of
other places they might want to be going instead?

Paris, Europe...