|
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
On Mar 24, 8:40*am, wrote:
On Mar 23, 5:57*pm, "tim....." wrote: "TimB" wrote in message Aha. So they're saying 'It is much cheaper to safeguard the land at the start' [for quadrupling] rather than actually planning to build four tracks from the start. Fair enough. And the plan is to connect with Heathrow Express at Old Oak rather than running the HSL via Heathrow - also sensible, I think. In isolation this seems like a good idea, but when you add in the possibility of linking Heathrow with HS1 so that trains can replace planes on the London(Heathrow)-Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam/Cologne/Dusseldorf routes, it makes no sense at all I'm assuming that David Rowlands has been misquoted -- the money saving is in moving the old idea of a 'Heathrow Hub' from Iver to Old Oak. And it actually makes a good deal of sense when viewed in that prism, because you don't need the massive investment in distributing the passengers from Iver to the terminals (HEx/Crossrail will do that for you). It also allows you to get out of London along the Old Oak - Greenford - Ruislip line rather than having to carefully thread a fifth and sixth track along the GW mainline (mostly doable but expensive in places). Unless HS2 is run by idiots, the trains will still go on to Euston. And you can still get to Heathrow: if I were in charge, I'd build Airtrack and extend HEx to Staines, then take over the platforms at T5 that were due to be Airtrack, make them 'airside' (possibly even connected to T5's existing airside, although luggage might be an issue there) and run regular services Heathrow - Old Oak - Stratford (via Primrose Hill and the direct connection to HS1 at Camden Road) - Paris/ Brussels. Assuming suitable stock, you'd still have 125mph running from Airport Junction to Old Oak, so it would be 'almost a high-speed line'. You are making a LOT of sense. Thanks for posting. (Just don't expect any of this to actually happen. We are talking about the UK DfT!) |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
|
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
In message , at 15:50:45 on
Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Clark F Morris remarked: If it makes sense to have the TGV serve Charles de Gaulle and have an airport station at Schipol (also Frankfurt), then having the high speed line access Heathrow is worthy of very serious consideration. Although the TGV (and the RER) only service one of the three terminal complexes at CDG. If you have the misfortune to be using the other two, there's a significant extra leg to the journey. -- Roland Perry |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:54:37 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: Although the TGV (and the RER) only service one of the three terminal complexes at CDG. If you have the misfortune to be using the other two, there's a significant extra leg to the journey. Well, that depends of what terminals, and what you consider "significant" to be. There's a VAL connection between the RER station CDG2 and terminals 1 & 2 (A-F) which is fast and efficient. Terminal 2G is a real pain, though - there is only a bus connection to the rest of the airport. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
On Mar 24, 1:43*pm, wrote:
On Mar 24, 8:40*am, wrote: [snip] Unless HS2 is run by idiots, the trains will still go on to Euston. You are making a LOT of sense. *Thanks for posting. Thank you. I did a bit more thinking about this, and while I think the trains _should_ go on to Euston, I'm now of the opinion that David Rowlands might be serious in terminating them short at Old Oak. The reason is simple: gauge clearances. It's going to cost a pretty penny to get the Camden tunnels cleared for LGV gauge. There is a solution though, and it's staring us in the face. You need to build the short connecting tunnel between Old Oak and Kensal Green anyway so that you can link HS1 to HS2 effectively, but don't, for the time being, run double-deck trains through it. Instead, divert a bunch of 'regular' trains that would have terminated at Paddington into it (say, whichever lines have finally landed up electrified by then), and use the space freed up at Paddington for your new supertrains. There are far fewer gauge issues between Old Oak and Paddington than there are between Kensal Green and Euston. But personally, I'd just go through the pain of enlarging the Camden tunnels. (Just don't expect any of this to actually happen. *We are talking about the UK DfT!) True, but given that all major parties are in favour, it's actually got a decent shot. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
On Mar 24, 2:50*pm, Clark F Morris wrote:
As a traveler who has handled various transfers, I find that a station in the airport is far more convenient and reduces the number of connections needed by one. *The second best would be to have the rail station connected to the internal circulation system. *If it makes sense to have the TGV serve Charles de Gaulle and have an airport station at Schipol (also Frankfurt), then having the high speed line access Heathrow is worthy of very serious consideration. I agree with you. But there are a few points to make. (1) The previous proposal incorporated a 'Heathrow Hub' station at Iver, several miles from the airport itself. Connecting that to the airport would have required a complex inter-terminal shuttle system that currently does not exist. (2) Heathrow as such is not one place -- it is currently three places (T123, T4, T5) and may by 2020 be four (T6, adjacent to the third runway, would be the other one). The 'internal circulation system' is Heathrow Express and/or Heathrow Connect (which will be replaced by Crossrail before 2020). (3) Once you're on the internal circulation system in order to reach 'Heathrow station', then it's reasonable to ask how close 'Heathrow station' has to be to the terminals. I'd always assumed that it would be close by, but given that it will only take about ten minutes to get from T123 to Old Oak, and that siting 'Heathrow station' at Old Oak allows HS2 to be shorter, cheaper and (most importantly) faster, I actually think it's an inspired choice. And it's not like London's the first city to do this: west of the Pond, both JFK and Newark do the same thing. (Newark has a dedicated 'airport station' at the end of the inter-terminal tramway; JFK connects its to a rail interchange hub a few miles away. And both charge premium fares for riding the internal circulation system to the railhead.) (4) Even with all the above, I'd hope there would be a reasonably regular international high-speed service from Heathrow -- but you'd need to pick one place for it to run from. T5 has a pair of spare platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own about 10% of Eurostar, so that's the obvious place to use. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
|
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
|
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
On 25 Mar, 09:15, "Lüko Willms" wrote: Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:08:44 UTC, *schrieb *auf uk.railway : (4) Even with all the above, I'd hope there would be a reasonably regular international high-speed service from Heathrow -- but you'd need to pick one place for it to run from. T5 has a pair of spare platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own about 10% of Eurostar, so that's the obvious place to use. * BA owns 10% not of Eurostar, but of ICRR (Intercapital and Regional Railways), which manages the British Eurostar operations based on a 1998 contract with Eurostar (UK) Ltd, a contract with expires in 2010, i.e. next year. And BA is a "silent" partner, i.e. does not take part in the day to day steering of ICRR's activities. ICRR in turn is, if I am not completely mistaken, a shareholder of Eurostar Group Ltd, which is the unified management and distribution company of Eurostar as an international operation. You are mistaken - Eurostar Group is the "unified management structure" that was created in 1999 by the three Eurostar partners - SNCF, LCR, and SNCB/NMBS. Eurostar Group Ltd is merely the legal identity of this structure. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
On Mar 25, 1:08*am, wrote:
actually think it's an inspired choice. And it's not like London's the first city to do this: west of the Pond, both JFK and Newark do the same thing. (Newark has a dedicated 'airport station' at the end of the inter-terminal tramway; JFK connects its to a rail interchange hub a few miles away. And both charge premium fares for riding the internal circulation system to the railhead.) Is that charging structure new, at Newark? I haven't been there for a few years, but I'm 90% sure that last time I was there I caught the standard inter-terminal monorail-type-thing, for free, to the Amtrak/NJ Transit station. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
On Mar 25, 9:16*am, wrote:
On Mar 25, 1:08*am, wrote: Is that charging structure new, at Newark? I haven't been there for a few years, but I'm 90% sure that last time I was there I caught the standard inter-terminal monorail-type-thing, for free, to the Amtrak/NJ Transit station. No, it isn't new. It's just that it was built into the price of your rail ticket. If you'd bought a ticket to the next station on (Elizabeth), it would have been nearly $10 less (it's $15 from Penn to the airport, $5.50 from Penn to Elizabeth). The last time I caught this train (as it happens, I _was_ going to Elizabeth), tickets were collected from most passengers by the conductor, but airport passengers had to retain their ticket to prove at the airport station that they'd actually paid the $10 supplement. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
In message
, at 18:08:44 on Tue, 24 Mar 2009, remarked: T5 has a pair of spare platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own about 10% of Eurostar, so that's the obvious place to use. BA own 10% of Eurostar UK. I don't know what proportion of the Eurostar trains are operated by Eurostar UK (rather than the equivalent Belgian and French companies), but all the ones I get to/from Brussels seem to have French speaking crew. -- Roland Perry |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
|
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
In message , at 00:59:48 on
Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Andrew Price remarked: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:54:37 +0000, Roland Perry wrote: Although the TGV (and the RER) only service one of the three terminal complexes at CDG. If you have the misfortune to be using the other two, there's a significant extra leg to the journey. Well, that depends of what terminals, and what you consider "significant" to be. There's a VAL connection between the RER station CDG2 and terminals 1 & 2 (A-F) which is fast and efficient. I timed it last June and here are my conclusions: Landed CDG T1 17.43 twenty minutes late, but v quick to gate long walk/travolators to main building Bags on carousel 18.10 then short immigration Q, no customs Q Arrived RER stn1 18.30 more travelators, shuttle-train ride from T1 RER train due 18.35 but it didn't show. RER train depart 18.48 different platform. Non-stop Gare du Nord. Gare du Nord arrive 19.08 stay on RER train to Denfert-Rochereau Denfert-Rochereau 19.25 approx. It was slightly quicker the other way: Montparnasse stn 16.15 Metro Depart Gare du Nord 16.47 Change to RER at Les Halles Arrived CDG stn1 17.14 Semi-fast. Reached checkin Q T1 17.26 Shuttle train etc Terminal 2G is a real pain, though - there is only a bus connection to the rest of the airport. The 2E "satellite" is also a fair distance, with yet another shuttle train to negotiate. -- Roland Perry |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
On 25 Mar, 14:24, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 18:08:44 on Tue, 24 Mar 2009, remarked: T5 has a pair of spare platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own about 10% of Eurostar, so that's the obvious place to use. BA own 10% of Eurostar UK. I don't know what proportion of the Eurostar trains are operated by Eurostar UK (rather than the equivalent Belgian and French companies), but all the ones I get to/from Brussels seem to have French speaking crew. BA emphatically does *not* own 10% of Eurostar UL Ltd (EUKL). EUKL is 100% owned by London & Continental Railways - LCR is itself not a quoted company so there's no off-the-shelf source of information about its shareholders, but BA is not one them - Bechtel, UBS, National Express Group, EDF Energy and at least one if not more wholly owned subsidiary company/companies of SNCF are amongst the shareholders. BA is however a 10% shareholder in Inter-Continental and Regional Rail - LCR has a contract with ICRR to manage the UK part of the Eurostar operation, i.e. the British share of the tri-national effort. BA is however a silent partner in this. The whole issue of ownership and management of the Eurostar operation, CTRL/HS1, LCR etc gets very muddled - more so when one considers that courtesy of the massive loans that HM Government made available to LCR, HM Government is basically capable of pulling the strings at LCR (witness the proposed 'sell-off' of the three constituent parts of LCR - EUKL, CTRL/HS1 and the property interests). Things get even more interesting when one considers that the contract LCR has with ICRR expires next year - it could be renewed, but it seems there could *possibly* be some interesting scenarios with an outside party - say DB - coming in and buying EUKL and then proceeding to operate a new, separate international service which might then precipitate the collapse of the tri-national Eurostar collaboration. However I've no idea what binding commitments there are in treaties, contracts and understandings, but the designated UK operator might be compelled to work in concord with the French and Belgian railways in providing a tri-national service (i.e. the Eurostar service). How this plays out with EU competition rules is another question. And whether DB would really consider it wise to come in and set themselves up against SNCF is another matter still. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
In message
, at 08:29:30 on Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Mizter T remarked: On 25 Mar, 14:24, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 18:08:44 on Tue, 24 Mar 2009, remarked: T5 has a pair of spare platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own about 10% of Eurostar, so that's the obvious place to use. BA own 10% of Eurostar UK. I don't know what proportion of the Eurostar trains are operated by Eurostar UK (rather than the equivalent Belgian and French companies), but all the ones I get to/from Brussels seem to have French speaking crew. BA emphatically does *not* own 10% of Eurostar UL Ltd (EUKL). OK. BA is however a 10% shareholder in Inter-Continental and Regional Rail - LCR has a contract with ICRR to manage the UK part of the Eurostar operation, i.e. the British share of the tri-national effort. Any idea how big the British share is - 33.3% exactly, or some other figure? BA is however a silent partner in this. And if the contact is almost expired, there isn't much residual value anyway. Things get even more interesting when one considers that the contract LCR has with ICRR expires next year - it could be renewed, Presumably the contract has to be renewed, but not necessarily with ICRR. LVCR might pick a different partner, a bit like DaFT chooses a different partner to operate the UK rail franchises from time to time. but it seems there could *possibly* be some interesting scenarios with an outside party - say DB - coming in and buying EUKL and then proceeding to operate a new, separate international service which might then precipitate the collapse of the tri-national Eurostar collaboration. Couldn't DB run the equivalent of an open-access operation, alongside a renewed "franchise" for the UK Eurostar operations? -- Roland Perry |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:50:23 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
auf uk.railway : RR in turn is, if I am not completely mistaken, a shareholder of Eurostar Group Ltd, which is the unified management and distribution company of Eurostar as an international operation. You are mistaken - Eurostar Group is the "unified management structure" that was created in 1999 by the three Eurostar partners - SNCF, LCR, and SNCB/NMBS. Eurostar Group Ltd is merely the legal identity of this structure. Are you sure, that neither EUKL nor ICRR are partner of Eurostar Group Ltd? Do you have sources for this? And if, if neither the owner of the British Eurostar trainsets (EUKL) nor the company which is the railway undertaking running those trains on British soil (ICRR) are partners in Eurostar Group Ltd, on what contractual basis can Eurostar Group Ltd interfere in the business of EUKL and ICRR? Cheers, L.W. -- ----------------------------------------------------- |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:54:52 UTC, schrieb Roland Perry
auf uk.railway : but it seems there could *possibly* be some interesting scenarios with an outside party - say DB - coming in and buying EUKL and then proceeding to operate a new, separate international service which might then precipitate the collapse of the tri-national Eurostar collaboration. Couldn't DB run the equivalent of an open-access operation, alongside a renewed "franchise" for the UK Eurostar operations? This is no franchise .... DB could do what you formulate in your question above, or they could simply dispend of ICRR and manage the Eurostar traffic on Great Britain themselves, but sit in the respective boards of Eurostar Group Ltd, or let this fall back to the international cooperation as before 1999 and negotiate a new setup for the tri-national operation. Or they could withdraw the EUKL owned Class 373 trainsets completely from the cross-Channel operation and use them for an Open Access operation from London to Scotland, for example. Who knows what is on Mr. Mehdorn's mind... Cheers, L.W. -- ----------------------------------------------------- |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
On 25 Mar, 20:21, "Lüko Willms" wrote: Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:50:23 UTC, *schrieb Mizter T *auf uk.railway : ICRR in turn is, if I am not completely mistaken, a shareholder of Eurostar Group Ltd, which is the unified management and distribution company of Eurostar as an international operation. You are mistaken - Eurostar Group is the "unified management structure" that was created in 1999 by the three Eurostar partners - SNCF, LCR, and SNCB/NMBS. Eurostar Group Ltd is merely the legal identity of this structure. * Are you sure, that neither EUKL nor ICRR are partner of Eurostar Group Ltd? Do you have sources for this? LCR *wholly owns* EUKL, and I said that LCR was one of the three partners that make up Eurostar Group Ltd. This railfaneurope.net page suggests that the split in ownership of Eurostar Group Ltd is EUKL 33%, SNCF 62%, SNCB/NMBS 5% - ok, so LCR is a partner through it's wholly owned subsidiary EUKL rather than a direct partner in Eurostar Group Ltd, but that's just a technicality. * And if, if neither the owner of the British Eurostar trainsets (EUKL) nor the company which is the railway undertaking running those trains on British soil (ICRR) are partners in Eurostar Group Ltd, on what contractual basis can Eurostar Group Ltd interfere in the business of EUKL and ICRR? Read what I said! I did mention LCR. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
In message
, at 21:21:01 on Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Lüko Willms remarked: Couldn't DB run the equivalent of an open-access operation, alongside a renewed "franchise" for the UK Eurostar operations? This is no franchise .... ICRR sounds just like GNER running a franchise on the ECML. If not, what's the essential difference. -- Roland Perry |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
"Lüko Willms" wrote
DB could do what you formulate in your question above, or they could simply dispend of ICRR and manage the Eurostar traffic on Great Britain themselves, Er, we've been here before... it's *in* Great Britain to everyone here (except for the one or two eccentrics on (or in) these groups who sprang to your defence last time...) I can work out what you meant by 'dispend'. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:08:44 -0700 (PDT),
wrote: (2) Heathrow as such is not one place -- it is currently three places (T123, T4, T5) and may by 2020 be four (T6, adjacent to the third runway, would be the other one). I thought the plans for T6 put it in place of T123 , with a T5A & B being built first. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
wrote I thought the plans for T6 put it in place of T123 , with a T5A & B being built first. I'm not sure of BAA's intended timescales, but 'Heathrow Central' would be a new terminal on the site of and replacing T123, while T6 will be adjacent to the railway between Hayes & Harlington and T123. Accordingly, with three stops HEx and Crossrail trains will be able to serve T6, Heathrow Central and T5, or T6, Heathrow Central, and T4. Do LUL have any plans to get the Piccadilly Line to T6, and if so, how? Peter |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
On 25 Mar, 23:17, "Peter Masson" wrote: wrote I thought the plans for T6 put it in place of T123 , with a T5A & B being built first. I'm not sure of BAA's intended timescales, but 'Heathrow Central' would be a new terminal on the site of and replacing T123, while T6 will be adjacent to the railway between Hayes & Harlington and T123. Accordingly, with three stops HEx and Crossrail trains will be able to serve T6, Heathrow Central and T5, or T6, Heathrow Central, and T4. Do LUL have any plans to get the Piccadilly Line to T6, and if so, how? I'd think any such plans would basically be advanced by BAA as opposed to LUL these days - that's broadly how the tube extension to T5 came about. Of course LUL would be integrally involved in any such plans - e.g. working out how the new service would run - but the model of how things were done with T5, where BAA paid for the extension and then got it built, would surely be followed. Apart from anything else it's hard to see any Mayor of London exercising themselves or indeed the TfL budget over serving a new airport terminal they don't want (and I can't really see any future Mayor adopting a fundamentally different policy on this). |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:40:54 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
auf uk.railway : This railfaneurope.net page suggests that the split in ownership of Eurostar Group Ltd is EUKL 33%, SNCF 62%, SNCB/NMBS 5% - ok, so LCR is a partner through it's wholly owned subsidiary EUKL rather than a direct partner in Eurostar Group Ltd, but that's just a technicality. No, it isnt. Since if the British share in Eurostar Group Ltd were held by L&CR, a sale of EUKL would not pass this ownership to the buyer of EUKL, but stay with L&CR, among whose owners one finds SNCF... Railfaneurope... I wait for a reply from SNCF Participations to my query... * And if, if neither the owner of the British Eurostar trainsets (EUKL) nor the company which is the railway undertaking running those trains on British soil (ICRR) are partners in Eurostar Group Ltd, on what contractual basis can Eurostar Group Ltd interfere in the business of EUKL and ICRR? Read what I said! I did mention LCR. Sure, but EUKL handed management of Eurostar on Great Britain over to ICRR. What is then left to EUKL to do? I would think that not EUKL, but ICRR is the partner in Eurostar Group Ltd, and that the 62% which SNCF gives on their SNCF-Participations website is the addition of a direct share and the indirect via ICRR. Cheers, L.W. -- ----------------------------------------------------- |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:02:25 UTC, schrieb Roland Perry
auf uk.railway : Couldn't DB run the equivalent of an open-access operation, alongside a renewed "franchise" for the UK Eurostar operations? This is no franchise .... ICRR sounds just like GNER running a franchise on the ECML. not to me. If not, what's the essential difference. This is not a government contract with a private company, but a contract between two private companies, where one charges the other to do its work. And ATOC does not list Eurostar as a franchise. Cheers, L.W. -- ----------------------------------------------------- |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:00:40 UTC, schrieb "John Salmon"
auf uk.railway : "Lüko Willms" wrote DB could do what you formulate in your question above, or they could simply dispend of ICRR and manage the Eurostar traffic on Great Britain themselves, Er, we've been here before... it's *in* Great Britain to everyone here Great Britain is an island. In case you go to vacations to the largest of the Balearen islands, would you spend your time _on_ Mallorca, or _in_ Mallorca? I can work out what you meant by 'dispend'. My reminiscences of Latin interferes sometimes with my english vocabulary... The proper form of the verb I meant to use is "dispense" like in "dispense with ICRR". Thanks for helping to improve my English! Cheers, L.W. -- ----------------------------------------------------- |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
In message
, at 08:31:33 on Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Lüko Willms remarked: ICRR sounds just like GNER running a franchise on the ECML. not to me. If not, what's the essential difference. This is not a government contract with a private company, but a contract between two private companies, where one charges the other to do its work. Yes, so the only difference is that in one case it's the Government letting the contract, and in the other it's a multinational quasi-public sector company that's letting the contract. -- Roland Perry |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
Am Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:46:38 UTC, schrieb Roland Perry
auf uk.railway : This is not a government contract with a private company, but a contract between two private companies, where one charges the other to do its work. Yes, so the only difference is that in one case it's the Government letting the contract, and in the other it's a multinational quasi-public sector company that's letting the contract. The management contract is between Eurostar (UK) Ltd (EUKL) and Intercapital and Regional Railways Ltd (ICRR). EUKL is 100% owned by L&CR. In how far is EUKL a "multinational quasi-public sector company"? Cheers, L.W. -- ----------------------------------------------------- |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
In message
, at 09:38:24 on Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Lüko Willms remarked: The management contract is between Eurostar (UK) Ltd (EUKL) and Intercapital and Regional Railways Ltd (ICRR). EUKL is 100% owned by L&CR. In how far is EUKL a "multinational quasi-public sector company"? My understanding is that L&CR is nationalised in all but name, and one of the shareholders is SNCF. -- Roland Perry |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
In article
, "Lüko Willms" wrote: Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:00:40 UTC, schrieb "John Salmon" auf uk.railway : "Lüko Willms" wrote DB could do what you formulate in your question above, or they could simply dispend of ICRR and manage the Eurostar traffic on Great Britain themselves, Er, we've been here before... it's *in* Great Britain to everyone here Great Britain is an island. In case you go to vacations to the largest of the Balearen islands, would you spend your time _on_ Mallorca, or _in_ Mallorca? We'd say "in Mallorca" (actually we'd say "in Majorca" but we'd pronounce it as if it were a German word!). We'd say "in Ireland" too. We generally reserve "on" for islands you can see most of at the same time: on the Isle of Wight, on Arran, on Lindisfarne, on Barra. We might use "in" for islands that are also states of some kind so you could use either "in" or "on" for the Isle of Man or Jersey. The phrase "in the island of Ireland" is common but then so is "on the island of Ireland". It's pretty weird. Sam |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
Sam Wilson wrote:
We'd say "in Mallorca" (actually we'd say "in Majorca" but we'd pronounce it as if it were a German word!). We'd say "in Ireland" too. We generally reserve "on" for islands you can see most of at the same time: on the Isle of Wight, on Arran, on Lindisfarne, on Barra. We might use "in" for islands that are also states of some kind so you could use either "in" or "on" for the Isle of Man or Jersey. The phrase "in the island of Ireland" is common but then so is "on the island of Ireland". Size is irrelevant IMO. I find that if it's a country, you say "in", otherwise you say "on". I would certainly say "on South Island" (NZ), "on Baffin Island" and "on Hokkaido", even though these islands are way too big to see the whole thing at the same time. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:30:10 +0000, Sam Wilson
wrote: It's pretty weird. And you travel "on the train", though you might find you got a belt from the overhead lines if you actually did! :) Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, John Rowland wrote:
Sam Wilson wrote: We'd say "in Mallorca" (actually we'd say "in Majorca" but we'd pronounce it as if it were a German word!). We'd say "in Ireland" too. We generally reserve "on" for islands you can see most of at the same time: on the Isle of Wight, on Arran, on Lindisfarne, on Barra. We might use "in" for islands that are also states of some kind so you could use either "in" or "on" for the Isle of Man or Jersey. The phrase "in the island of Ireland" is common but then so is "on the island of Ireland". Size is irrelevant IMO. I find that if it's a country, you say "in", otherwise you say "on". I would certainly say "on South Island" (NZ), "on Baffin Island" and "on Hokkaido", even though these islands are way too big to see the whole thing at the same time. On Eurasia? That's an island too. I think to an extent it depends about whether you're talking about the island as a political or geological unit. You're in a polity, but on a rock. tom -- But for [Flavor Flav's] "YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAH BOYYYYYYYYYY"s alone he should be given Rap Legend status. -- Nate Patrin, ILX |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
On Mar 26, 1:58*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:30:10 +0000, Sam Wilson wrote: It's pretty weird. And you travel "on the train", though you might find you got a belt from the overhead lines if you actually did! :) Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. And on the airplane [sic.] as George Carlin pointed out. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
On Mar 26, 2:14*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, John Rowland wrote: Sam Wilson wrote: We'd say "in Mallorca" (actually we'd say "in Majorca" but we'd pronounce it as if it were a German word!). *We'd say "in Ireland" too. We generally reserve "on" for islands you can see most of at the same time: on the Isle of Wight, on Arran, on Lindisfarne, on Barra. We might use "in" for islands that are also states of some kind so you could use either "in" or "on" for the Isle of Man or Jersey. *The phrase "in the island of Ireland" is common but then so is "on the island of Ireland". Size is irrelevant IMO. I find that if it's a country, you say "in", otherwise you say "on". I would certainly say "on South Island" (NZ), "on Baffin Island" and "on Hokkaido", even though these islands are way too big to see the whole thing at the same time. On Eurasia? That's an island too. I think to an extent it depends about whether you're talking about the island as a political or geological unit. You're in a polity, but on a rock. tom -- But for [Flavor Flav's] "YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAH BOYYYYYYYYYY"s alone he should be given Rap Legend status. -- Nate Patrin, ILX- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text This is probably right up to a point, but this doesn't tell us what to do when (1) a polity and an an island are coterminus, and (2) the speaker doesn't want explicitly to refer to one or another. There then doesn't seem to be a general rule: upthread it was suggested that one might holiday on the Isle of White, but in Majorca. That sounds right to me. In this case, I suspect that one uses on for the Isle of White precisely because the word Isle is in the name, but I'm far from convinced that this is a general rule. --- Bill. |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the worldwithin 12 years
Roland Perry wrote:
BA own 10% of Eurostar UK. I don't know what proportion of the Eurostar trains are operated by Eurostar UK (rather than the equivalent Belgian and French companies), but all the ones I get to/from Brussels seem to have French speaking crew. That's odd. One wouldn't expect the Belgian Railways to solely put French speaking crew on their Eurostars... |
(Times): Britain to have fastest train service in the world within 12 years
In message , at 07:33:48 on Fri, 27 Mar
2009, "/" remarked: BA own 10% of Eurostar UK. I don't know what proportion of the Eurostar trains are operated by Eurostar UK (rather than the equivalent Belgian and French companies), but all the ones I get to/from Brussels seem to have French speaking crew. That's odd. One wouldn't expect the Belgian Railways to solely put French speaking crew on their Eurostars... Even the front of house staff at St Pancras are predominantly French speakers, as far as I can tell (I changed a ticket at the office, tried to buy a Brussels metro card at the enquiries desk in the departure lounge, etc). Their English varies from good to gruesome (but is better then my French, so I can't complain). -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk