Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote: Alex Terrell wrote: I also put a case for converting the Maidstone West line to light rail, and (after A2 capacity is freed up by the opening of the Lower Thames Crossing) taking over 2 lanes of the A2 to extend it to Ebbsfleet. So do you still object to my plan to use freed up A2 capacity for a light rail line from Ebbsfleet to Cuxton, where it would join the Maidstone line (which would also be converted to light rail). Why would it have to be light rail, rather than a real railway? tom -- I had no idea it was going to end in such tragedy |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alex Terrell wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message ... No, the shortage of paths is on the CTRL, as a lot more people are expected to start using Eurostars once they run at high speeds all the way. They always say that. But lets assume passenger numbers treble. That would fill six trains per hour. You keep talking about filling the trains. I for one don't want to travel on full trains, and unlike with aeroplanes the economics don't require it. 50-70% sounds comfortable to me - it's still fuller than the average car - and gives spare capacity to cover for breakdowns and peak days without having to run extra trains. 100% full trains are not pleasant to travel on, especially if you're alone. Treble the passengers would be comfortable on 9 trains. The other 3 could serve destinations beyond London and Brussels. With CTRL, the tunnel should be quicker than air for lots more origins/destinations. Colin McKenzie -- The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead! |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at
14:39:30 on Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Colin McKenzie remarked: 100% full trains are not pleasant to travel on, especially if you're alone. 100% works OK on Eurostar, where everyone has an allocated seat (so you can easily trump the folks who put their bag on the seat next to them and glare at anyone who comes along), and where the seats are large enough and spaced out enough that you can cope with the space allocated to one. OTOH, a 3+2 arranged WAGN 317 in the rush hour, loaded beyond 80%[1], is quite a different kettle of fish! [1] ie actually needing some people to sit three abreast on the "3" side. -- Roland Perry |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Colin McKenzie wrote in
: ... With CTRL, the tunnel should be quicker than air for lots more origins/destinations. Colin McKenzie Which destinations had you in mind? Even with CTRL it will still be the wrong side of two hours, plus check-in, for both Paris and Brussels. You might make a dent in the London - Rotterdam market but everywhere else remains significantly more than than magic three hours from London. (I can't find a figure for the London-Koln journey time but London-Amsterdam is quoted at 3h 45m over the new Dutch high speed line. This isn't going to create a massive modal shift or vast increase in the number of passengers between London and Amsterdam). David |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:43:19 +0000, David Jackman wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote in : ... With CTRL, the tunnel should be quicker than air for lots more origins/destinations. Colin McKenzie Which destinations had you in mind? Even with CTRL it will still be the wrong side of two hours, plus check-in, for both Paris and Brussels. You might make a dent in the London - Rotterdam market but everywhere else remains significantly more than than magic three hours from London. (I can't find a figure for the London-Koln journey time but London-Amsterdam is quoted at 3h 45m over the new Dutch high speed line. This isn't going to create a massive modal shift or vast increase in the number of passengers between London and Amsterdam). People travel London-Edinburgh by train. Wouldn't you get enough for even one an hour? I'd like some long distance sleepers to be honest. Direct from London, leave at night ~ 10PM, through tunnel, stop at calais, paris, then down to Geneva, Milan, Rome, Naples, Bari, Brindisi, Lecce. Another one might be Paris, Nice, Turin, Milan, Venice (or mestre and onto Triest and Lubjania). An Iberian one to Paris, Bordeux, Barcelona, Madrid, Lisbon. A Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, Warsaw one, Another to South Germany and Austria. Etc. How far can you travel in 10 hours? You can probably make Turin and Berlin at least. Is the tunnel used much at night? (leave London arorund 11 or midnight, so midnight - 2AM)? |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Weaver wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:43:19 +0000, David Jackman wrote: Colin McKenzie wrote in : ... With CTRL, the tunnel should be quicker than air for lots more origins/destinations. Colin McKenzie Which destinations had you in mind? Even with CTRL it will still be the wrong side of two hours, plus check-in, for both Paris and Brussels. You might make a dent in the London - Rotterdam market but everywhere else remains significantly more than than magic three hours from London. (I can't find a figure for the London-Koln journey time but London-Amsterdam is quoted at 3h 45m over the new Dutch high speed line. This isn't going to create a massive modal shift or vast increase in the number of passengers between London and Amsterdam). People travel London-Edinburgh by train. Wouldn't you get enough for even one an hour? I'd like some long distance sleepers to be honest. Direct from London, leave at night ~ 10PM, through tunnel, stop at calais, paris, then down to Geneva, Milan, Rome, Naples, Bari, Brindisi, Lecce. Another one might be Paris, Nice, Turin, Milan, Venice (or mestre and onto Triest and Lubjania). An Iberian one to Paris, Bordeux, Barcelona, Madrid, Lisbon. A Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, Warsaw one, Another to South Germany and Austria. Etc. I would've thought long-distance sleeper services through the Tunnel were a winner. Leave London in the evening (plenty of time to get from most other places in the country) and wake up in the depths of Europe without having to deal with getting to and from airports and exhausting yourself during the day (or at some horrible time of morning if it's a cheap airline!) You could essentially "save" a day's travelling. How far can you travel in 10 hours? You can probably make Turin and Berlin at least. London to Milan is currently around 12 hours with changes at Paris and Lausanne or Geneva so I think that could be a 10 hour destination. London to Nice is already a 10 hour journey via Paris so that would make an easy high-speed sleeper service. London to Barcelona is around 12 hours changing at Lille and Perpignan; that would be a problem as it is a Talgo service from Perpignan but you could run the sleeper as far as Perpignan for the moment. London to Berlin is currently a 12-hour journey travelling overnight between Brussels and Wolfsburg, with connections either side. A direct train might make it in 11 hours. (about an hour between connections at Brussels but much less at Wolfsburg) Is the tunnel used much at night? (leave London arorund 11 or midnight, so midnight - 2AM)? I think freight trains use it a lot at night so pathing through the tunnel might be quite slow if it's between freights. It also depends if any of these freights use the CTRL, as that would also slow down sleeper services. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Paul Weaver wrote: On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:43:19 +0000, David Jackman wrote: Colin McKenzie wrote in : ... With CTRL, the tunnel should be quicker than air for lots more origins/destinations. Colin McKenzie Which destinations had you in mind? Even with CTRL it will still be the wrong side of two hours, plus check-in, for both Paris and Brussels. You might make a dent in the London - Rotterdam market but everywhere else remains significantly more than than magic three hours from London. (I can't find a figure for the London-Koln journey time but London-Amsterdam is quoted at 3h 45m over the new Dutch high speed line. This isn't going to create a massive modal shift or vast increase in the number of passengers between London and Amsterdam). People travel London-Edinburgh by train. Wouldn't you get enough for even one an hour? I'd like some long distance sleepers to be honest. Direct from London, leave at night ~ 10PM, through tunnel, stop at calais, paris, then down to Geneva, Milan, Rome, Naples, Bari, Brindisi, Lecce. Another one might be Paris, Nice, Turin, Milan, Venice (or mestre and onto Triest and Lubjania). An Iberian one to Paris, Bordeux, Barcelona, Madrid, Lisbon. A Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, Warsaw one, Another to South Germany and Austria. Etc. I would've thought long-distance sleeper services through the Tunnel were a winner. Leave London in the evening (plenty of time to get from most other places in the country) and wake up in the depths of Europe without having to deal with getting to and from airports and exhausting yourself during the day (or at some horrible time of morning if it's a cheap airline!) You could essentially "save" a day's travelling. How far can you travel in 10 hours? You can probably make Turin and Berlin at least. London to Milan is currently around 12 hours with changes at Paris and Lausanne or Geneva so I think that could be a 10 hour destination. London to Nice is already a 10 hour journey via Paris so that would make an easy high-speed sleeper service. London to Barcelona is around 12 hours changing at Lille and Perpignan; that would be a problem as it is a Talgo service from Perpignan but you could run the sleeper as far as Perpignan for the moment. London to Berlin is currently a 12-hour journey travelling overnight between Brussels and Wolfsburg, with connections either side. A direct train might make it in 11 hours. (about an hour between connections at Brussels but much less at Wolfsburg) London to Munich is another that could be added to this list, currently takes 10h30m to 14h30m depending on connections. -- Cheers, Steve. Change from jealous to sad to reply. |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave Arquati wrote:
I would've thought long-distance sleeper services through the Tunnel were a winner. It's not the Government's job to subsidise your 'hotel' bills. -- confguide.com - the conference guide |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"david stevenson" wrote in message
... Dave Arquati wrote: I would've thought long-distance sleeper services through the Tunnel were a winner. It's not the Government's job to subsidise your 'hotel' bills. I don't see how that's what was being suggested. I can see how sleeper trains could be very popular - the idea of being able to get on a train in central London at 10pm and waking up in Rome the following morning not only has a certain romance, it could also be very practical. The ability to travel without losing half a day of either work or a holiday hanging around in airports could be very useful. Jonn |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"South Bank to benefit from zone 1 stations" | London Transport | |||
Benefit cost ratio on street signs | London Transport | |||
Would Oyster benefit me? | London Transport | |||
North London commuters to benefit from secure cycle parking in Finsbury Park | London Transport News | |||
Hayes (Kent) line | London Transport |