Discussion:
If another high speed train ever makes it through the Channel Tunnel...
(too old to reply)
p***@yahoo.co.uk
2007-11-08 23:07:44 UTC
Permalink
The technical requirements for allowing other high-speed trains to
travel through the Channel Tunnel have been discussed here once or
twice and it seems there is a healthy disagreement as to whether
another train will pass through the tunnel. However, assuming that one
does finally get here by fair means or foul, what design changes
might have to be made before it could stop at Ashford or other
stations not located on Highspeed 1?

For example, the Network statement of Highspeed 1 explains that the
international platforms at Ashford can accommodate UIC GB+ vehicles.
It also says the wire height through Ashford is lower than for
Highspeed1 and that trains wishing to use Ashford would require AWS/
TPWS signalling systems.

Not being a technical sort of person, I have no idea what this all
would mean for other existing high-speed trains if they ever wished to
stop in Ashford. Could an ICE or TGV already do so or would there
first need to be changes to the train or to the infrastructure
provided? Would any changes made for stopping at Ashford also be
sufficient to allow the trains to stop at stations on the WCML?
David Hansen
2007-11-09 08:38:39 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:07:44 -0800 someone who may be
Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
For example, the Network statement of Highspeed 1 explains that the
international platforms at Ashford can accommodate UIC GB+ vehicles.
It also says the wire height through Ashford is lower than for
Highspeed1 and that trains wishing to use Ashford would require AWS/
TPWS signalling systems.
Not being a technical sort of person, I have no idea what this all
would mean for other existing high-speed trains if they ever wished to
stop in Ashford. Could an ICE or TGV already do so or would there
first need to be changes to the train or to the infrastructure
provided?
Pass on wire height.

The only TGVs which have TPWS will be the ones that already pass
through this particular tunnel. Fitting it to other trains would be
possible, but probably not worth it.
Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Would any changes made for stopping at Ashford also be
sufficient to allow the trains to stop at stations on the WCML?
When the EU directive on interoperability has had enough time a
train would be able to continue, but resignalling to provide ETCS
will take a long time to cover much of the UK network (and indeed
the networks on the mainland). There may be a case for accelerating
the fitting of ETCS to a few lines in southern England to allow
trains from the mainland to use them to get to places already fitted
with ETCS.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Lüko Willms
2007-11-09 18:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
the Network statement of Highspeed 1
Where can I download that Network Statement?
Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
<http://www.highspeed1.com/contentpage.php?page=downloads>
Cheers,
L.W.
Lüko Willms
2007-11-09 18:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
For example, the Network statement of Highspeed 1 explains that the
international platforms at Ashford can accommodate UIC GB+ vehicles.
while the rest of HS1 conforms to UIC GC.

UIC loading gauges are GA, GB, and GC (I guess, the "G" means
"General"). As far as I know, the difference is in the height. While
the UIC leaflets are very very expensive, the general public can find
information on the loading gauges in the EC's TSI for high speed
trains (TSI = Technical Specifications for Interoperability).
Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
It also says the wire height through Ashford is lower than for
Highspeed1
at minimum 4.68 meters instead of 5.08 meters on HS1.

The ICE-3 e.g. are 3.89 meters high and can extend their pantographs
up to 5.86 meters. I guess there are no problems.
Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
and that trains wishing to use Ashford would require AWS/
TPWS signalling systems.
I think the latter is a misunderstanding. I understand the
regulation "For Waterloo Connection and Ashford connecting lines onto
NRIL's Network, AWS/TPWS is needed" to mean the connecting lines at
Ashford to the "classical" network managed by Network Rail, not the
Ashford International station (especially the two international
platforms there).

Finally I found the answer to my question about the platform
heights: the international platforms are 760 mm high, as specified in
the TSI (high speed), not the standard British platform height of 915
mm.



Cheers,
L.W.
Cheeky
2007-11-09 22:35:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 19:10:15 +0100, "Lüko Willms"
Post by Lüko Willms
I think the latter is a misunderstanding. I understand the
regulation "For Waterloo Connection and Ashford connecting lines onto
NRIL's Network, AWS/TPWS is needed" to mean the connecting lines at
Ashford to the "classical" network managed by Network Rail, not the
Ashford International station (especially the two international
platforms there).
I'm sure I've also read in another thread recently that even at the
new St Pancras there is a requirement for TPWS to be fitted as the
station itself doesn't have TVM430 due to its unsuitability for use in
a low-speed environment...
p***@yahoo.co.uk
2007-11-09 22:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Lüko Willms
2007-11-10 05:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Could I check the signalling question again. ( I read the document
rather quickly but interpreted "Ashford connecting lines" as meaning
the section of line used to pass through Ashford station as it is not
part of the HS1 and is managed by network rail.
It is not completely clear to me. In 3.2, "Extent of Network", it is
said "Trains can call at or by-pass Ashford International Station on
the NRIL Network". Looking at the satellite images via Google Earth,
it seems that the CTRL/HS1 bypasses the station on the east, with
connecting lines going into the station, so that calling at Ashford
would actually need British train control equipement, which is needed
nowhere else on the journey from Calais Fréthun until St. Pancras.
"For St. Pancras International Station and its approaches, KVB is
required" (Section 3.3.3.1 "Signalling Systems"). But also "St.
Pancras International Station and its approaches are controlled by
lineside signalling."

I now downloaded also Network Rail's 2009 Network Statement, and the
map "Route 1 Kent" shows Ashford International station as being on the
NRIL network, off the HS1. So your original understanding is probably
the right one... On the other hand, the section 3.3.2.6 "Power Supply"
indicates overhead wire for Ashford Int'l station (minimum of 4.68m),
but specifies "Conventional NRIL 750V DC third rail system" for among
others "Ashford connecting lines".

Any was, if AWS/TPWS is required for Ashford Int'l station, then any
train that has not been specially built for the Channel tunnel traffic
will not call at Ashford since that would require fitting the train
with an additional control and signalling system, just for this stop
alone. That is, our object of speculation the ICE-3MF, i.e. the one
certified for France could use HS1 without problems, but not the
Ashford station. Would it be economically worth while to fit the
British AWS/TPWS just for that stop?


Cheers,
L.W.
Lüko Willms
2007-11-10 10:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 05:14:45 UTC, schrieb "Lüko Willms"
Post by Lüko Willms
if AWS/TPWS is required for Ashford Int'l station, then any
train that has not been specially built for the Channel tunnel traffic
will not call at Ashford since that would require fitting the train
with an additional control and signalling system, just for this stop
alone.
Another question is access to the Temple Mills Depot, which is
controlled by Eurostar UK Ltd, and which is accessible only via the
flyover starting eastwards in the Stratford International station.
Will there be a 25 kV overhead wire, will there be KVB or exclusively
AWS/TPWS?

Temple Mills Depot replaces the North Pole depot located north of
the Wormwood Scrubs.


Cheers,
L.W.
Mizter T
2007-11-10 12:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Lüko Willms
2007-11-10 14:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:34:37 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
Post by Lüko Willms
Another question is access to the Temple Mills Depot, which is
controlled by Eurostar UK Ltd, and which is accessible only via the
flyover starting eastwards in the Stratford International station.
Will there be a 25 kV overhead wire, will there be KVB or exclusively
AWS/TPWS?
I don't know what signalling system is used in Temple Mills depot, but
it has 25kV overhead lines.
Temple Mills depots sole rail connection is the single access line
that leads onto the CTRL next to Stratford International station. It
does not have a rail connection to the Lea Valley line (the Stratford
to Tottenham Hale line) that runs alongside the depot.
Hm, yes, it starts as a flyover from the Stratford Int'l platforms,
and then goes thru a tunnel underneath the line from Stratford
regional, emerging east of that line, which is this Lea Valley Line. I
guess.

But on Google Earths satellite image, I see a rail track merging
northwards into that line, just at the southern end of the Temple
Mills Depot hall. But that may have been there just for the
construction of the link between Stratford Int'l and the depot, and
only provisional.

Anyway, having access to such a depot is also a problem for any
train operating company which might think of sending trains from the
continent to London in competition with Eurostar. Either one doesn't
have any maintenence facility on the island, which is a risky
undertaking, or one comes to an agreement with Eurostar, or one has to
invest into some other means (EWS has or used to have a little shed
for locomotives just north of the Eurostar Temple Mills depot).


Cheers,
L.W.
rail
2007-11-10 15:34:30 UTC
Permalink
In message <czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-***@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de>
"Lüko Willms" <***@domain.invalid> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Lüko Willms
Anyway, having access to such a depot is also a problem for any
train operating company which might think of sending trains from the
continent to London in competition with Eurostar. Either one doesn't
have any maintenence facility on the island, which is a risky
undertaking, or one comes to an agreement with Eurostar, or one has to
invest into some other means (EWS has or used to have a little shed
for locomotives just north of the Eurostar Temple Mills depot).
Something at Ashford possibly? There's still chunks of the railway works
there and providing an enhanced loading gauge link to the site wouldn't be
that difficult.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Peter Masson
2007-11-10 16:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by rail
Something at Ashford possibly? There's still chunks of the railway works
there and providing an enhanced loading gauge link to the site wouldn't be
that difficult.
IIRC the 1970s Channel Tunnel proposals would have involved expanding
Ashford to Cheriton to Channel Tunnel gauge, and maintaining the Shuttles at
Ashford.

Peter
The Good Doctor
2007-11-10 18:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Masson
Post by rail
Something at Ashford possibly? There's still chunks of the railway works
there and providing an enhanced loading gauge link to the site wouldn't be
that difficult.
IIRC the 1970s Channel Tunnel proposals would have involved expanding
Ashford to Cheriton to Channel Tunnel gauge, and maintaining the Shuttles at
Ashford.
You do recall correctly, Peter.

The cost of a "Berne gauge" link to London was considered prohibitive,
and unlikely ever to repay more than a tiny fraction of its cost. It
was the high cost of the link and likely low return on that cost that
was behind the Labour Government's 1974 decision to terminate the
tunnelling trials and consign the Channel Tunnel project to the
dustbin.

And one has to say that, with hindsight, it was entirely the right
decision.

The Channel Tunnel will struggle to make a return on just a quarter of
its cost, the other three quarters having been written off. The
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (High Speed One) will also struggle to make a
return on more than a quarter of its cost, and the British taxpayer
will have to foot the entire bill for this folly.

In all, just short of £20 billion has been squandered on the two
schemes, and for what? The Channel Tunnel is carrying about half the
Shuttle traffic that was forecast for 2007. Rail freight is running
at less than a quarter of the traffic that was forecast for 2007.
Eurostar is carrying less than a third of the passengers that were
forecast for 2007.

Meanwhile, over £10 billion has been written off by Eurotunnel. The
losers in this are a great many small shareholders, plus banks,
pension funds and other financial institutions who were conned rotten
by grossly over-optimistic forecasts.

Many people on uk.railway consider this write-off to be something that
doesn't affect them, but if they or any of their relatives or friends
have a private pension, or any contributory pension that is funded, it
is likely that the performance of their pension fund will have been
adversely affected.

The road traffic that is being carried by the Shuttle trains would
easily be carried by ferries that get more and more efficient with
each generation. The rail freight traffic is almost non-existent and
many alternative modes exist to carry it. Eurostar is an abject
failure and the chance of it ever becoming viable is nil.

So taken as a whole, the Channel Tunnel scheme, including the
Shuttles, rail freight, High Speed 1 and Eurostar, is just an
expensive (£20 billion) embarrassment. There is some superb
engineering, and the whole thing is very impressive to look at and
use, but it doesn't pay and it never will.

Imagine how £20 billion could have been spent on improving rail routes
within the UK - you know, the ones that people actually use?
Mizter T
2007-11-10 18:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by Peter Masson
Post by rail
Something at Ashford possibly? There's still chunks of the railway works
there and providing an enhanced loading gauge link to the site wouldn't be
that difficult.
IIRC the 1970s Channel Tunnel proposals would have involved expanding
Ashford to Cheriton to Channel Tunnel gauge, and maintaining the Shuttles at
Ashford.
You do recall correctly, Peter.
The cost of a "Berne gauge" link to London was considered prohibitive,
and unlikely ever to repay more than a tiny fraction of its cost. It
was the high cost of the link and likely low return on that cost that
was behind the Labour Government's 1974 decision to terminate the
tunnelling trials and consign the Channel Tunnel project to the
dustbin.
And one has to say that, with hindsight, it was entirely the right
decision.
The Channel Tunnel will struggle to make a return on just a quarter of
its cost, the other three quarters having been written off. The
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (High Speed One) will also struggle to make a
return on more than a quarter of its cost, and the British taxpayer
will have to foot the entire bill for this folly.
In all, just short of £20 billion has been squandered on the two
schemes, and for what? The Channel Tunnel is carrying about half the
Shuttle traffic that was forecast for 2007. Rail freight is running
at less than a quarter of the traffic that was forecast for 2007.
Eurostar is carrying less than a third of the passengers that were
forecast for 2007.
Meanwhile, over £10 billion has been written off by Eurotunnel. The
losers in this are a great many small shareholders, plus banks,
pension funds and other financial institutions who were conned rotten
by grossly over-optimistic forecasts.
Many people on uk.railway consider this write-off to be something that
doesn't affect them, but if they or any of their relatives or friends
have a private pension, or any contributory pension that is funded, it
is likely that the performance of their pension fund will have been
adversely affected.
The road traffic that is being carried by the Shuttle trains would
easily be carried by ferries that get more and more efficient with
each generation. The rail freight traffic is almost non-existent and
many alternative modes exist to carry it. Eurostar is an abject
failure and the chance of it ever becoming viable is nil.
So taken as a whole, the Channel Tunnel scheme, including the
Shuttles, rail freight, High Speed 1 and Eurostar, is just an
expensive (£20 billion) embarrassment. There is some superb
engineering, and the whole thing is very impressive to look at and
use, but it doesn't pay and it never will.
Imagine how £20 billion could have been spent on improving rail routes
within the UK - you know, the ones that people actually use?
But it is done now, and cannot be undone - both the channel tunnel and
the CTRL are facts on (or under) the ground. Let's try and make the
best use of both of them.
k***@aol.com
2007-11-10 19:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mizter T
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by Peter Masson
Post by rail
Something at Ashford possibly? There's still chunks of the railway works
there and providing an enhanced loading gauge link to the site wouldn't be
that difficult.
IIRC the 1970s Channel Tunnel proposals would have involved expanding
Ashford to Cheriton to Channel Tunnel gauge, and maintaining the Shuttles at
Ashford.
You do recall correctly, Peter.
The cost of a "Berne gauge" link to London was considered prohibitive,
and unlikely ever to repay more than a tiny fraction of its cost. It
was the high cost of the link and likely low return on that cost that
was behind the Labour Government's 1974 decision to terminate the
tunnelling trials and consign the Channel Tunnel project to the
dustbin.
And one has to say that, with hindsight, it was entirely the right
decision.
The Channel Tunnel will struggle to make a return on just a quarter of
its cost, the other three quarters having been written off. The
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (High Speed One) will also struggle to make a
return on more than a quarter of its cost, and the British taxpayer
will have to foot the entire bill for this folly.
In all, just short of 20 billion has been squandered on the two
schemes, and for what? The Channel Tunnel is carrying about half the
Shuttle traffic that was forecast for 2007. Rail freight is running
at less than a quarter of the traffic that was forecast for 2007.
Eurostar is carrying less than a third of the passengers that were
forecast for 2007.
Meanwhile, over 10 billion has been written off by Eurotunnel. The
losers in this are a great many small shareholders, plus banks,
pension funds and other financial institutions who were conned rotten
by grossly over-optimistic forecasts.
Many people on uk.railway consider this write-off to be something that
doesn't affect them, but if they or any of their relatives or friends
have a private pension, or any contributory pension that is funded, it
is likely that the performance of their pension fund will have been
adversely affected.
The road traffic that is being carried by the Shuttle trains would
easily be carried by ferries that get more and more efficient with
each generation. The rail freight traffic is almost non-existent and
many alternative modes exist to carry it. Eurostar is an abject
failure and the chance of it ever becoming viable is nil.
So taken as a whole, the Channel Tunnel scheme, including the
Shuttles, rail freight, High Speed 1 and Eurostar, is just an
expensive ( 20 billion) embarrassment. There is some superb
engineering, and the whole thing is very impressive to look at and
use, but it doesn't pay and it never will.
Imagine how 20 billion could have been spent on improving rail routes
within the UK - you know, the ones that people actually use?
But it is done now, and cannot be undone - both the channel tunnel and
the CTRL are facts on (or under) the ground. Let's try and make the
best use of both of them.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted te
how anyone can call channel tunnel and the link to london a waste of
money - well small minded bigots comes to mind.

imagine this sort of thinking 200 odd years ago - messrs stephenson &
brunel etc would be turning in their graves to see this sort of thing
- but then again - todays newspapers make good toilet and fish and
chip paper

the fact that the UK is finally connected to europe by a FAST
dedicated line to the tunnel should be making us proud, not stagnant.
finally the railways are back in contention with the airlines to
europe.

now the next stage - perhaps a rethink to high speed links to
birmingham manchester york glasgow and edinburgh, not forgetting
bristol. perhaps a new high speed link to the west country is in order
again - 125 was acheived on the westerm why not a new line at double
the speed 250 mph - the technology is there, there are units that can
acheive it, all that stops us is the classic human factor yet again !!

from st pancras - we should not be concentrating on brussels and paris
nord - more destinations in europe - why not a eurostar to areas it
can run to nice, turin , etc - all it takes is traincrews some cool
pathing etc and a bit of push.

for gods sake we have bullet trains running in this country now -
tested b4 it was attempted

once again great britain is back in the railway age with the rest of
the world. lets enjoy this return to the golden age of transport. not
slag it off all the time

as a railwayman im more excited about the prospect of having a ride on
this line than anything else at the moment !!

whether it is liked or not britain is again linked to europe directly,
can anyone imagine that line being closed down ?? only a fool would
think that !!

purely my opinions
Mizter T
2007-11-10 19:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@aol.com
Post by Mizter T
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by Peter Masson
Post by rail
Something at Ashford possibly? There's still chunks of the railway works
there and providing an enhanced loading gauge link to the site wouldn't be
that difficult.
IIRC the 1970s Channel Tunnel proposals would have involved expanding
Ashford to Cheriton to Channel Tunnel gauge, and maintaining the Shuttles at
Ashford.
You do recall correctly, Peter.
The cost of a "Berne gauge" link to London was considered prohibitive,
and unlikely ever to repay more than a tiny fraction of its cost. It
was the high cost of the link and likely low return on that cost that
was behind the Labour Government's 1974 decision to terminate the
tunnelling trials and consign the Channel Tunnel project to the
dustbin.
And one has to say that, with hindsight, it was entirely the right
decision.
The Channel Tunnel will struggle to make a return on just a quarter of
its cost, the other three quarters having been written off. The
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (High Speed One) will also struggle to make a
return on more than a quarter of its cost, and the British taxpayer
will have to foot the entire bill for this folly.
In all, just short of 20 billion has been squandered on the two
schemes, and for what? The Channel Tunnel is carrying about half the
Shuttle traffic that was forecast for 2007. Rail freight is running
at less than a quarter of the traffic that was forecast for 2007.
Eurostar is carrying less than a third of the passengers that were
forecast for 2007.
Meanwhile, over 10 billion has been written off by Eurotunnel. The
losers in this are a great many small shareholders, plus banks,
pension funds and other financial institutions who were conned rotten
by grossly over-optimistic forecasts.
Many people on uk.railway consider this write-off to be something that
doesn't affect them, but if they or any of their relatives or friends
have a private pension, or any contributory pension that is funded, it
is likely that the performance of their pension fund will have been
adversely affected.
The road traffic that is being carried by the Shuttle trains would
easily be carried by ferries that get more and more efficient with
each generation. The rail freight traffic is almost non-existent and
many alternative modes exist to carry it. Eurostar is an abject
failure and the chance of it ever becoming viable is nil.
So taken as a whole, the Channel Tunnel scheme, including the
Shuttles, rail freight, High Speed 1 and Eurostar, is just an
expensive ( 20 billion) embarrassment. There is some superb
engineering, and the whole thing is very impressive to look at and
use, but it doesn't pay and it never will.
Imagine how 20 billion could have been spent on improving rail routes
within the UK - you know, the ones that people actually use?
But it is done now, and cannot be undone - both the channel tunnel and
the CTRL are facts on (or under) the ground. Let's try and make the
best use of both of them
how anyone can call channel tunnel and the link to london a waste of
money - well small minded bigots comes to mind.
(snip)
Just to be clear - despite responding to my post kev5176 appears to
basically be responding to points made by The Good Doctor.

I didn't give any opinion in my post as to what I thought of whether
the Chunnel and the CTRL are worth it or not, instead I just said that
as they both now exist I hope we make the best use of them.
The Good Doctor
2007-11-10 21:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mizter T
But it is done now, and cannot be undone - both the channel tunnel and
the CTRL are facts on (or under) the ground. Let's try and make the
best use of both of them.
I agree completely.

However, we need to learn some hard lessons from this fiasco.

First, the Channel Tunnel should not have been built. Second, we
should not have thrown good money after bad by building an extremely
expensive high speed rail link. The biggest mistake of all was giving
a Government guarantee for the cost of the whole link plus a £2
billion gift of taxpayers' money towards the cost, no questions asked.
All this was based on taking (at face value) predictions of rapid
growth in passenger numbers that could so easily have been exposed as
grossly over-optimistic. The lessons of the similarly grossly
over-optimistic Channel Tunnel traffic predictions were not learned
and the danger is that exactly the same mistakes will be made in
future unless we learn these lessons now.

For example, the traffic predictions for any proposed High Speed 2
need to be scrutinised against the lies that were put up to "justify"
the construction of the Channel Tunnel and High Speed 1.
Dave
2007-11-13 07:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
First, the Channel Tunnel should not have been built. Second, we
should not have thrown good money after bad by building an extremely
expensive high speed rail link.
Tosh. Both are capable of making operating profits and both are useful
assets European transport. It's only the form and source of the financing
that needs to be called into question.
Post by The Good Doctor
The biggest mistake of all was giving
a Government guarantee for the cost of the whole link plus a £2
billion gift of taxpayers' money towards the cost, no questions asked.
All this was based on taking (at face value) predictions of rapid
growth in passenger numbers that could so easily have been exposed as
grossly over-optimistic. The lessons of the similarly grossly
over-optimistic Channel Tunnel traffic predictions were not learned
and the danger is that exactly the same mistakes will be made in
future unless we learn these lessons now.
You clearly have no trouble with £5bn for Crossrail coming from general
taxation and another £5bn coming from TfL (aka taxation). What a shame the
Channel Tunnel wasn't given the same head start - no thanks to Tory
idealism.
Post by The Good Doctor
For example, the traffic predictions for any proposed High Speed 2
need to be scrutinised against the lies that were put up to "justify"
the construction of the Channel Tunnel and High Speed 1.
Figures that have been widely published show a 1:2 cost benefit ratio to the
economy from Crossrail. Two different independent studies show "HS2" giving
up to 1:3 on £10bn. I suppose you are now going to pop up in another thread
and accuse me of dreaming that up?


D
The Good Doctor
2007-11-14 12:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by The Good Doctor
First, the Channel Tunnel should not have been built. Second, we
should not have thrown good money after bad by building an extremely
expensive high speed rail link.
Tosh. Both are capable of making operating profits and both are useful
assets European transport. It's only the form and source of the financing
that needs to be called into question.
That's like saying you can easily afford to pay your household bills,
but you cannot afford the mortgage repayments.

Try telling the bank or building society who lent you the money that
"I can pay my council tax and utility bills, and the house is very
useful to me, it is only the form and source of the financing
that needs to be called into question."

They would immediately spot that you are a complete idiot.
Post by Dave
Post by The Good Doctor
The biggest mistake of all was giving
a Government guarantee for the cost of the whole link plus a £2
billion gift of taxpayers' money towards the cost, no questions asked.
All this was based on taking (at face value) predictions of rapid
growth in passenger numbers that could so easily have been exposed as
grossly over-optimistic. The lessons of the similarly grossly
over-optimistic Channel Tunnel traffic predictions were not learned
and the danger is that exactly the same mistakes will be made in
future unless we learn these lessons now.
You clearly have no trouble with £5bn for Crossrail coming from general
taxation and another £5bn coming from TfL (aka taxation). What a shame the
Channel Tunnel wasn't given the same head start - no thanks to Tory
idealism.
I have no problem in public investment in viable projects. Crossrail
is one, Thameslink is another. I am a very strong supporter of both
projects.

Where I do have a problem is wasting public (or private) money on
projects that just aren't viable. Both the Channel Tunnel and its
rail link were sold to the Government(s) on the basis of grossly
over-optimistic traffic forecasts that bordered on systematic lying.
Post by Dave
Post by The Good Doctor
For example, the traffic predictions for any proposed High Speed 2
need to be scrutinised against the lies that were put up to "justify"
the construction of the Channel Tunnel and High Speed 1.
Figures that have been widely published show a 1:2 cost benefit ratio to the
economy from Crossrail. Two different independent studies show "HS2" giving
up to 1:3 on £10bn. I suppose you are now going to pop up in another thread
and accuse me of dreaming that up?
The figures showed the Channel Tunnel would be viable. It wasn't. The
figures showed the Channel Tunnel Rail Link would be viable. It
isn't. Only an idiot would believe a third set of figures.

You are that idiot.
Clive.
2007-11-14 14:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
The figures showed the Channel Tunnel would be viable. It wasn't. The
figures showed the Channel Tunnel Rail Link would be viable. It
isn't. Only an idiot would believe a third set of figures.
I can accept that you're anti-rail a lot of people are, but remember an
awful lot of freight can now make a trip from anywhere in Europe to
anywhere in Britain without it having to be handled at Calais and again
at Dover, further relieving a lot of stress on our second class roads.
There is a lot more to life than bean counting, or do you accept that as
soon as your NHS bill becomes a net drain on resources, you should be
put down, like an animal. I forgot to add that the Victoria line was
built with the accepted argument that it would never pay for itself, but
the amenity was worth the relief of traffic congestion. As far as I
know, the Victoria line has paid for itself, and try doing without it
now.
--
Clive.
John B
2007-11-14 16:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clive.
I can accept that you're anti-rail a lot of people are, but remember an
awful lot of freight can now make a trip from anywhere in Europe to
anywhere in Britain without it having to be handled at Calais and again
at Dover, further relieving a lot of stress on our second class roads.
s/"can"/"could". In practice, bugger-all freight travels through the
chunnel, partly due to Eurotunnel's extortionate fees, partly due to
French protectionism and the complexity of different signalling
systems and rail gauges, partly due to the massice subsidy that road
freight gets, and partly due to our gibbering paranoia about dirty
foreigners sneaking in.
Post by Clive.
There is a lot more to life than bean counting, or do you accept that as
soon as your NHS bill becomes a net drain on resources, you should be
put down, like an animal.
Obviously not. However, I'm not sure that 'being able to get to Paris
quickly' is in the same league as 'being able to live out your final
years or months in the company of your loved ones' when determining
which things are worthy of state subsidy.

However, a question for Mr P/anyone else who knows - we know the
tunnel and the CTRL have made a massive negative financial return, but
what has been their total social return? A B/C ratio [marginally]
higher than 1 wouldn't surprise me, in which case it wasn't a terrible
thing that they were built.
Post by Clive.
I forgot to add that the Victoria line was
built with the accepted argument that it would never pay for itself, but
the amenity was worth the relief of traffic congestion. As far as I
know, the Victoria line has paid for itself, and try doing without it
now.
I'd be surprised if the Victoria line has paid for itself in financial
accounting terms, given that London Underground runs and has ~always
run a large annual operating deficit. But obviously, yes, the Victoria
line was a good idea with a high overall B/C ratio [and also took c.20
years to greenlight, in case anyone who's grumpy about Crossrail's
delays thinks things used to be better in Ye Olden Days...]

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
Mizter T
2007-11-14 18:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by Clive.
I can accept that you're anti-rail a lot of people are, but remember an
awful lot of freight can now make a trip from anywhere in Europe to
anywhere in Britain without it having to be handled at Calais and again
at Dover, further relieving a lot of stress on our second class roads.
s/"can"/"could". In practice, bugger-all freight travels through the
chunnel, partly due to Eurotunnel's extortionate fees, partly due to
French protectionism and the complexity of different signalling
systems and rail gauges, partly due to the massice subsidy that road
freight gets, and partly due to our gibbering paranoia about dirty
foreigners sneaking in.
Just with regards to the last point - I'd guess that people clinging
to freight trains (and many others attempting to do so) probably
doesn't make for an easy way to run a railway. Of course, in an ideal
world, people wouldn't be that desperate to come "here" because
"there" would be a nice place to live and work as well.

In case this gets misinterpreted I'll be clear, I am fully in favour
of properly utilising the Channel Tunnel to shift freight, and it's a
great shame so much freight ends up going through the tunnel loaded on
lorries on the HGV shuttles, only to hit the roads at the other end.
bobrayner
2007-11-14 18:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
The figures showed the Channel Tunnel would be viable. It wasn't. The
figures showed the Channel Tunnel Rail Link would be viable. It
isn't. Only an idiot would believe a third set of figures.
You seem to have forgotten "the enormous NATIONAL benefit it provides
as a piece
of strategic international infrastructure".

Those are the words of a Tony Polson who claimed to be a great
authority on the subject. People who disagreed with Tony Polson were
regularly insulted and belittled; so I hope he's not reading this
thread, or you'll be in trouble. ;-)
Post by The Good Doctor
You are that idiot.
Hmm.
Dave
2007-11-14 19:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by Dave
Post by The Good Doctor
First, the Channel Tunnel should not have been built. Second, we
should not have thrown good money after bad by building an extremely
expensive high speed rail link.
Tosh. Both are capable of making operating profits and both are useful
assets European transport. It's only the form and source of the financing
that needs to be called into question.
That's like saying you can easily afford to pay your household bills,
but you cannot afford the mortgage repayments.
This is yet another one of your straw man arguments. I do not seek
public support for my mortgage and neither is my house an important
piece of European infrastructure.

All governments invest public money into capital infrastructure
projects, just that this one in the past has tended to put it into
roads. The situation I described with Eurostar covering its operating
cost is no different to any of the domestic TOCs, because even the
ones that make operating profit are quietly subsidised through the DfT
money paid to Network Rail keeping track access charges down. The only
difference is that the existing infrastructure has had 150 years to
amortise its initial capital.

Therefore your insistence that Eurostar / Eurotunnel be the only rail
company in the world whose capital investment be completely off the
public accounts is somewhat illogical - just like the blinkered
Thatcherite views that caused this issue in the first place.
Post by The Good Doctor
Try telling the bank or building society who lent you the money that
"I can pay my council tax and utility bills, and the house is very
useful to me, it is only the form and source of the financing
that needs to be called into question."
They would immediately spot that you are a complete idiot.
Mr Polson throwing about personal insults. I'd hoped you could respond
with a constructive argument. Should have known from past form.
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by Dave
You clearly have no trouble with £5bn for Crossrail coming from general
taxation and another £5bn coming from TfL (aka taxation). What a shame the
Channel Tunnel wasn't given the same head start - no thanks to Tory
idealism.
I have no problem in public investment in viable projects. Crossrail
is one, Thameslink is another. I am a very strong supporter of both
projects.
We've seen.

However, if these were "viable", there would be no need for the public
investment. What are your criteria for a viable public infrastructure
project, because reading your previous posts one would come to the
conclusion that it was a project that could pay back its debt from
revenues?
Post by The Good Doctor
Where I do have a problem is wasting public (or private) money on
projects that just aren't viable. Both the Channel Tunnel and its
rail link were sold to the Government(s) on the basis of grossly
over-optimistic traffic forecasts that bordered on systematic lying.
No. They were sold to the governments on figures that were available
at the time. Perhaps Stelios Haji Ioannou could have commented on what
was about to happen, but it's widely accepted that the low cost
airline phenomenon was not foreseen in the late 80s. The fact that
Eurostar are pulling in 75% of the market from London is testament to
the demand for this type of service. If regional and night services
had been given access to the potential market at the time (i.e.
Easyjet et al didn't happen) then I'm sure we would see circa 15m
passengers by now.
Post by The Good Doctor
The figures showed the Channel Tunnel would be viable. It wasn't. The
figures showed the Channel Tunnel Rail Link would be viable. It
isn't.
I've shown real world data in a previous post that shows Eurostar is
comparable in popularity to any other intercity service in the UK. The
stance you take on this subject shows that you are infact anti all
long distance rail. The WCML received over £8bn - on a line serving a
market of circa 10m passengers per annum. Was that good value? Not
IMHO - it should have been spent on HS2.

Although it wont make the headlines, thanks to the subsidy received by
Network Rail, everywhere else will receive similar figures - just
spread over a longer time. Does that mean we should shut down the
entire railway? With your usenet name, I think I know what the answer
will be.
Post by The Good Doctor
Only an idiot would believe a third set of figures.
Again, I've posted figures that show the full potential market for HS2
(London - Manchester - Leeds - Newcastle - Edinburgh - Glasgow) is
over 17m journeys per annum on London services alone. Throw in
intermediate journeys (which are in the URL I linked to) and the
market is huge. That's today's data, not projected figures based on
market growth or passengers captured from other modes. Anything above
that would be a bonus, a market which clearly can be captured judging
by the number of planes leaving London airports for Scotland - and a
market which is not going to go anywhere by just changing the colours
on the side of a rake of Class 4s.
Post by The Good Doctor
You are that idiot.
And you are plainly a road / air lobby troll. The reason you don't
like high-speed rail, or long distance rail in general, is because it
scares you. As long as investment is directed to urban rail schemes,
preferably in London, it can't be used to eat into the market for what
you really stand for - more money for road schemes and airports.
You've said as much in the past. Yet when it comes to actually backing
up your point of view with some data, all we get is straw men and
personal insults.

This conversation is getting very boring. I suggest that you go away
for a while and perhaps do some research to support your stance. Come
back when you have something we can analyse.

D
Arthur Figgis
2007-11-14 19:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by Dave
Post by The Good Doctor
First, the Channel Tunnel should not have been built. Second, we
should not have thrown good money after bad by building an extremely
expensive high speed rail link.
Tosh. Both are capable of making operating profits and both are useful
assets European transport. It's only the form and source of the financing
that needs to be called into question.
That's like saying you can easily afford to pay your household bills,
but you cannot afford the mortgage repayments.
Try telling the bank or building society who lent you the money that
"I can pay my council tax and utility bills, and the house is very
useful to me, it is only the form and source of the financing
that needs to be called into question."
They would immediately spot that you are a complete idiot.
Post by Dave
Post by The Good Doctor
The biggest mistake of all was giving
a Government guarantee for the cost of the whole link plus a £2
billion gift of taxpayers' money towards the cost, no questions asked.
All this was based on taking (at face value) predictions of rapid
growth in passenger numbers that could so easily have been exposed as
grossly over-optimistic. The lessons of the similarly grossly
over-optimistic Channel Tunnel traffic predictions were not learned
and the danger is that exactly the same mistakes will be made in
future unless we learn these lessons now.
You clearly have no trouble with £5bn for Crossrail coming from general
taxation and another £5bn coming from TfL (aka taxation). What a shame the
Channel Tunnel wasn't given the same head start - no thanks to Tory
idealism.
I have no problem in public investment in viable projects. Crossrail
is one, Thameslink is another. I am a very strong supporter of both
projects.
Where I do have a problem is wasting public (or private) money on
projects that just aren't viable.
But why should a private investor care about what some loony old anorak
thinks about what they choose to do with their own money?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Arthur Figgis
2007-11-14 19:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Post by Dave
Post by The Good Doctor
First, the Channel Tunnel should not have been built. Second, we
should not have thrown good money after bad by building an extremely
expensive high speed rail link.
Tosh. Both are capable of making operating profits and both are useful
assets European transport. It's only the form and source of the financing
that needs to be called into question.
That's like saying you can easily afford to pay your household bills,
but you cannot afford the mortgage repayments.
Try telling the bank or building society who lent you the money that
"I can pay my council tax and utility bills, and the house is very
useful to me, it is only the form and source of the financing
that needs to be called into question."
They would immediately spot that you are a complete idiot.
Post by Dave
Post by The Good Doctor
The biggest mistake of all was giving
a Government guarantee for the cost of the whole link plus a £2
billion gift of taxpayers' money towards the cost, no questions asked.
All this was based on taking (at face value) predictions of rapid
growth in passenger numbers that could so easily have been exposed as
grossly over-optimistic. The lessons of the similarly grossly
over-optimistic Channel Tunnel traffic predictions were not learned
and the danger is that exactly the same mistakes will be made in
future unless we learn these lessons now.
You clearly have no trouble with £5bn for Crossrail coming from general
taxation and another £5bn coming from TfL (aka taxation). What a shame the
Channel Tunnel wasn't given the same head start - no thanks to Tory
idealism.
I have no problem in public investment in viable projects. Crossrail
is one, Thameslink is another. I am a very strong supporter of both
projects.
Where I do have a problem is wasting public (or private) money on
projects that just aren't viable.
But why should a private investor care about what some loony old anorak
thinks about what they choose to do with their own money?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Lüko Willms
2007-11-10 22:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:02:49 UTC, schrieb The Good Doctor
Post by The Good Doctor
The Channel Tunnel will struggle to make a return on just a quarter of
its cost, the other three quarters having been written off. The
Channel Tunnel Rail Link (High Speed One) will also struggle to make a
return on more than a quarter of its cost, and the British taxpayer
will have to foot the entire bill for this folly.
It is only a tiny part of the rail infrastructure in Europe
(including its biggest island), and it is making all that
infrastructure more important.

It is thatcherite nonsense to price every kilometer of the road and
rail differently from the rest according to its particular individual
cost.

Deutsche Bahn has recently celebrated the cutting thru of the
"Katzenberg" rail tunnel in the upper Rhine valley. Will that tunnel
ever pay its construction costs? In and by itself probably never. But
it makes the whole Rhine axis from Rotterdam to the new base tunnels
under the Alps in Switzerland more valuable because it is an essential
part of the widening of that corridor to four tracks, two of those
with max speeds of 250 km/h for high speed passenger traffic.

That is the way to look at infrastructure projects. As a fan of
project management you should be aware of that. But apparently
ideology bars your mind to grasp the obvious...


Cheers,
L.W.
The Real Doctor
2007-11-10 23:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
Meanwhile, over £10 billion has been written off by Eurotunnel. The
losers in this are a great many small shareholders, plus banks,
pension funds and other financial institutions who were conned rotten
by grossly over-optimistic forecasts.
Many people on uk.railway consider this write-off to be something that
doesn't affect them, but if they or any of their relatives or friends
have a private pension, or any contributory pension that is funded, it
is likely that the performance of their pension fund will have been
adversely affected.
That falls into the trap of thinking that the money has somehow been
destroyed. It hasn't: the £10bn went somewhere else, and for every
pension fund loss on Eurotunnel there will have been pension fund
gains in constructions industry investment.
Post by The Good Doctor
Imagine how £20 billion could have been spent on improving rail routes
within the UK - you know, the ones that people actually use?
That, of course, is why some of us think that spending £16bn on a five
mile tunnel in London (makes £20bn for the channel tunnel + HS1 seem
pretty good value, no?) may not be terribly sensible.

Ian
Dave
2007-11-11 21:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
The road traffic that is being carried by the Shuttle trains would
easily be carried by ferries that get more and more efficient with
each generation. The rail freight traffic is almost non-existent and
many alternative modes exist to carry it. Eurostar is an abject
failure and the chance of it ever becoming viable is nil.
So taken as a whole, the Channel Tunnel scheme, including the
Shuttles, rail freight, High Speed 1 and Eurostar, is just an
expensive (£20 billion) embarrassment. There is some superb
engineering, and the whole thing is very impressive to look at and
use, but it doesn't pay and it never will.
Imagine how £20 billion could have been spent on improving rail routes
within the UK - you know, the ones that people actually use?
According to Eurostar's figures*, >81m people have been carried since the
service launched. That's a mean of 6.25 million passengers per annum.
Passenger numbers for 2007 will be circa 8.5 million.

Let's see how that compares with other regions in the UK:

From http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/294.pdf

Table 7.10b London passenger journeys 2004-05
Total number of journeys (thousands)

To/from Scotland 1069
To/from North East 1730
To/from North West 4618
To/from Yorkshire & the Humber 4649
To/from Wales 1801
To/from West Midlands 5795
To/from East Midlands 6629
To/from East 96296
To/from South East 133997
To/from South West 8523


Of the regions containing intercity routes, only the "East" and "South West"
match or beat Eurostar, and these contain significant commuter flows.

This makes Mainland Europe the most popular intercity destination out of
London. Not exactly a route that I'd call "one that people don't exactly
use". But hey Tony, why let facts get in the way of dogma?


D


*As proclaimed by the large "goodbye" banner at Waterloo International.
rail
2007-11-11 00:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Masson
Post by rail
Something at Ashford possibly? There's still chunks of the railway works
there and providing an enhanced loading gauge link to the site wouldn't
be that difficult.
IIRC the 1970s Channel Tunnel proposals would have involved expanding
Ashford to Cheriton to Channel Tunnel gauge, and maintaining the Shuttles
at Ashford.
Don't think shuttles were ever part of the 1970s proposals. That was purely
a rail link between BR and SNCF.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Peter Masson
2007-11-11 17:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by rail
Don't think shuttles were ever part of the 1970s proposals. That was purely
a rail link between BR and SNCF.
This was the early 70s, where some preliminary construction works began at
Shakespeare Cliff, and there was a proposal for a new line from a terminus
at White City via Croydon, Oxted, Tonbridge and Ashford.

After this was stopped, the next proposal, late 1970s, was BR's
'mousehole' - with a single track tunnel for through trains only, and no
road vehicle-carrying capacity.

Peter
BH Williams
2007-11-11 21:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@aol.com
Post by rail
Don't think shuttles were ever part of the 1970s proposals. That was
purely
Post by rail
a rail link between BR and SNCF.
This was the early 70s, where some preliminary construction works began at
Shakespeare Cliff, and there was a proposal for a new line from a terminus
at White City via Croydon, Oxted, Tonbridge and Ashford.
After this was stopped, the next proposal, late 1970s, was BR's
'mousehole' - with a single track tunnel for through trains only, and no
road vehicle-carrying capacity.
Peter
There was a proposal at one time for the UK Terminal to be at Westenhanger-
the current chainage for the Channel Tunnel seems to be based on this,with
the UK Portal being at approximately Pk 9. I'm told that the Church
Commissioners invested a lot of money in land around the Westenhanger area,
only to find the railway pass them by.
Brian
David Hansen
2007-11-12 06:42:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:23:27 -0000 someone who may be "Peter Masson"
Post by Peter Masson
This was the early 70s, where some preliminary construction works began at
Shakespeare Cliff, and there was a proposal for a new line from a terminus
at White City via Croydon, Oxted, Tonbridge and Ashford.
That was the one where the models showed class 86 locomotives
hauling trains. It is a great pity it wasn't built as if it had been
it would have been rather more usable than the current setup.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Lüko Willms
2007-11-10 17:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:34:30 UTC, schrieb rail
Post by rail
Post by Lüko Willms
Anyway, having access to such a depot is also a problem for any
train operating company which might think of sending trains from the
continent to London in competition with Eurostar. Either one doesn't
have any maintenence facility on the island, which is a risky
undertaking, or one comes to an agreement with Eurostar, or one has to
invest into some other means (EWS has or used to have a little shed
for locomotives just north of the Eurostar Temple Mills depot).
Something at Ashford possibly?
With more than half an hour distance from the terminus?


Cheers,
L.W.
rail
2007-11-11 00:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lüko Willms
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:34:30 UTC, schrieb rail
Post by rail
Post by Lüko Willms
Anyway, having access to such a depot is also a problem for any
train operating company which might think of sending trains from the
continent to London in competition with Eurostar. Either one doesn't
have any maintenence facility on the island, which is a risky
undertaking, or one comes to an agreement with Eurostar, or one has to
invest into some other means (EWS has or used to have a little shed
for locomotives just north of the Eurostar Temple Mills depot).
Something at Ashford possibly?
With more than half an hour distance from the terminus?
So what? The GWR motive power maintainence depot at Swindon was a lomg way
from the terminus at Paddington, as were the various depots for the rest of
the Big 4.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Arthur Figgis
2007-11-10 16:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lüko Willms
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:34:37 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
Post by Lüko Willms
Another question is access to the Temple Mills Depot, which is
controlled by Eurostar UK Ltd, and which is accessible only via the
flyover starting eastwards in the Stratford International station.
Will there be a 25 kV overhead wire, will there be KVB or exclusively
AWS/TPWS?
I don't know what signalling system is used in Temple Mills depot, but
it has 25kV overhead lines.
Temple Mills depots sole rail connection is the single access line
that leads onto the CTRL next to Stratford International station. It
does not have a rail connection to the Lea Valley line (the Stratford
to Tottenham Hale line) that runs alongside the depot.
Hm, yes, it starts as a flyover from the Stratford Int'l platforms,
and then goes thru a tunnel underneath the line from Stratford
regional, emerging east of that line, which is this Lea Valley Line. I
guess.
But on Google Earths satellite image, I see a rail track merging
northwards into that line, just at the southern end of the Temple
Mills Depot hall. But that may have been there just for the
construction of the link between Stratford Int'l and the depot, and
only provisional.
Anyway, having access to such a depot is also a problem for any
train operating company which might think of sending trains from the
continent to London in competition with Eurostar. Either one doesn't
have any maintenence facility on the island, which is a risky
undertaking, or one comes to an agreement with Eurostar, or one has to
invest into some other means (EWS has or used to have a little shed
for locomotives just north of the Eurostar Temple Mills depot).
Temple Mills has provision to maintain TVM (not surprisingly) and can in
principle handle a TGV Duplex. Some of the depot roads can be switched
between 1.5, 3 and 25 kV, but it doesn't have 15 kV (yet...).

Given how much money the taxpayer has put into the depot, I'd hope the
government has got some sort of paperwork which could be used to allow
other trains in to it if need be!
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Lüko Willms
2007-11-10 18:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:52:12 UTC, schrieb Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Temple Mills has provision to maintain TVM (not surprisingly)
I guess you mean that there are maintenance facilites for TVM, but
not that the link to the depot is equipped with TVM, right?

Where can I find those informations?
Post by Arthur Figgis
and can in principle handle a TGV Duplex. Some of the depot roads can be switched
between 1.5, 3 and 25 kV, but it doesn't have 15 kV (yet...).
The latter is not supported by Eurostar trains, and wont be. It
would require a newly built train. For the rest, it is useful that
those power supplies can be tested. At the Griesheim maintenance depot
in Frankfurt, they have similar facilities, plus, of course 15 kV~16.7
Hz.
Post by Arthur Figgis
Given how much money the taxpayer has put into the depot,
State subsidy for an installation belonging to Eurostar?

Interesting...

Anyway, I suppose any continental railway company who would want to
send direct trains to London would want to collaborate with Eurostar
within the framework of Railteam.


Cheers,
L.W.
Mizter T
2007-11-10 19:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Lüko Willms
2007-11-10 22:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:18:04 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
What happens if LCR is broken up (which is what it would appear the
government wants to happen) is an interesting question. Would the
depot be in the ownership of the CTRL/HS1 infrastructure company or of
the Eurostar UK company - I'd presume the latter.
I understand the words in the CTRL Network Statement as meaning that
the Temple Mills depot is Eurostar's property: "Temple Mills Depot is
to be controlled by Eurostar UK Ltd and will not be part of the HS1
Network managed by CTRL(UK) Ltd, Union Railways (North) Ltd or
NR(CTRL) Ltd." But then maybe I misunderstood the word "controlled".
Buttressed by the phrasing of "From a date to be confirmed, Eurostar
(UK) Ltd will
have facilities which can undertake berthing, light servicing, light
and heavy maintenance of train sets which are compatible with Class
373 units in Temple Mills Depot. That depot is not part of the HS1
Network."


Cheers,
L.W.
Mizter T
2007-11-10 23:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lüko Willms
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:18:04 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
What happens if LCR is broken up (which is what it would appear the
government wants to happen) is an interesting question. Would the
depot be in the ownership of the CTRL/HS1 infrastructure company or of
the Eurostar UK company - I'd presume the latter.
Be aware that my comments above were purely speculation as to what
might happen in the future, if and when London & Continental Railways
(owners of Eurostar UK Ltd and also of the CTRL) were to break up into
separate companies.
Post by Lüko Willms
I understand the words in the CTRL Network Statement as meaning that
the Temple Mills depot is Eurostar's property: "Temple Mills Depot is
to be controlled by Eurostar UK Ltd and will not be part of the HS1
Network managed by CTRL(UK) Ltd, Union Railways (North) Ltd or
NR(CTRL) Ltd." But then maybe I misunderstood the word "controlled".
Buttressed by the phrasing of "From a date to be confirmed, Eurostar
(UK) Ltd will
have facilities which can undertake berthing, light servicing, light
and heavy maintenance of train sets which are compatible with Class
373 units in Temple Mills Depot. That depot is not part of the HS1
Network."
Cheers,
L.W.
My understanding is that Eurostar UK Ltd is indeed the owner of the
Temple Mills depot.

However *theoretically* at least this could change if and when LCR
gets broken up - not least because the UK government could insist that
the depot becomes the property of the CTRL infrastructure company,
perhaps as a kind of way of ensuring that competing operators could
use the CTRL.

However on an operational level I'd think this would perhaps be pretty
unworkable and hence pretty unlikely. More likely would be Eurostar
accommodating competing operators at Temple Mills depot, though
whether because the UK government or courts or the EU commission or
courts insists on this or because Eurostar are happy to do so anyway
(perhaps because it's part of the Railteam masterplan) I could not
say.

Ultimately I think that if another operator seriously wanted to run
trains from London to a destination other than Paris or Brussels and
could comply with (a) the tunnel safety requirements and (b) the
passport control/security requirements then as long as there was spare
capacity through the tunnel and on all the lines in question then it
would be possible. They might have to complain to the EU commission,
but ultimately I can't see the EU commission (and/or courts) failing
to find in favour of the new operator.

It would, of course, be a pretty major undertaking! Whether the
potential operator could successfully lobby to lessen the tunnel
safety requirements and/or the passport control/security requirements
is a good question, one that is repeatedly discussed here on
uk.railway.
bobrayner
2007-11-12 15:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mizter T
However on an operational level I'd think this would perhaps be pretty
unworkable and hence pretty unlikely. More likely would beEurostar
accommodating competing operators at Temple Mills depot, though
whether because the UK government or courts or the EU commission or
courts insists on this or becauseEurostarare happy to do so anyway
(perhaps because it's part of the Railteam masterplan) I could not
say.
I think this would clash with the spirit (if not the letter) of the
law, since it would allow plenty of scope for market-distorting (ie.
anticompetitive) behaviour by Eurostar or their successor.
Lüko Willms
2007-11-12 16:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:35:32 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
Post by Mizter T
Ultimately I think that if another operator seriously wanted to run
trains from London to a destination other than Paris or Brussels and
could comply with (a) the tunnel safety requirements and (b) the
passport control/security requirements then as long as there was spare
capacity through the tunnel and on all the lines in question then it
would be possible.
I am just reading and article from the International Railway Journal
(IRJ) from August 2003 (shortly before the opening of section 1 of the
CTRL) about the construction of HS1, where a LCR-Spokesperson said the
following:

<quote>
"CTRL has been designed with a capacity of 20 paths every hour. We
bare allocated 16 paths during peak hours so far--eight of these to
Eurostar and eight to the planned 200km/h Kent Express domestic
services. There is also plenty of scope for increasing off-peak use,
and I would like to see other operators such as German Rail (DB) take
an active interest. For example, the middle of the day would be an
ideal time to operate an ICE service running between London and
Cologne."
</quote>
Post by Mizter T
full: <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_8_43/ai_107756363/pg_3>
Cheers,
L.W.
Mizter T
2007-11-12 17:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lüko Willms
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:35:32 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
Post by Mizter T
Ultimately I think that if another operator seriously wanted to run
trains from London to a destination other than Paris or Brussels and
could comply with (a) the tunnel safety requirements and (b) the
passport control/security requirements then as long as there was spare
capacity through the tunnel and on all the lines in question then it
would be possible.
I am just reading and article from the International Railway Journal
(IRJ) from August 2003 (shortly before the opening of section 1 of the
CTRL) about the construction of HS1, where a LCR-Spokesperson said the
<quote>
"CTRL has been designed with a capacity of 20 paths every hour. We
bare allocated 16 paths during peak hours so far--eight of these to
Eurostar and eight to the planned 200km/h Kent Express domestic
services. There is also plenty of scope for increasing off-peak use,
and I would like to see other operators such as German Rail (DB) take
an active interest. For example, the middle of the day would be an
ideal time to operate an ICE service running between London and
Cologne."
</quote>
<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_8_43/ai_107756363/pg_3>
Cheers,
L.W.
A very interesting find Lüko, well dug up.

I think the "We bare allocated 16 paths [...]" is a type and should
read "We ARE allocated 16 paths [...]".

But there you have it from the horses mouth.

I've a simple question that I'm sure has been asked many many times
before - could the existing Eurostar trainsets be modified at all to
run on 15kV power and hence run on Germany railway lines, or would
this be an incredibly complex and expensive operation?
Lüko Willms
2007-11-12 18:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Am Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:51:33 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
Post by Mizter T
I've a simple question that I'm sure has been asked many many times
before - could the existing Eurostar trainsets be modified at all to
run on 15kV power and hence run on Germany railway lines, or would
this be an incredibly complex and expensive operation?
I think this would amount to a new built. Except, maybe, that they
would exchange the existing powerheads by those of the TGV POS, i.e.
the TGVs built for connections to Germany and Switzerland via the LGV
Est européenne, which do develop full power also under 15 kV, other
than the Thalys version. But such a change would result in a gap
between the powerhead and the carriages -- the latter are 2,80 meters
wide, the regular TGV -- if I can extrapolate from the Thalys --
measures 2,90 meters in width. Also not a good idea.

Somebody had quoted in this forum an interview with Eurostar's chief
executive, Richard Brown, with "Modern Railways" in, I think 2002 or
2003, where Brown spoke about this issue, negating the feasability to
add 15-kV-capability to the Eurostar trains.

I would like to see the full text of that interview, so if anybody
who still has it could please make a copy and send it to me --
preferably scanned as PDF and send to the Reply-To address of this
message...



Cheers,
L.W.
D7666
2007-11-14 17:00:01 UTC
Permalink
D7666
2007-11-14 17:02:19 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 14, 9:00 am, D7666 <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Err excuse spelling, typing far too hurriedly.
synchrnous
asyncrnous
aysnchronous
Eurotunnle
Hope you can all read typoese.

--
Nick
Graeme Wall
2007-11-14 17:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by D7666
Err excuse spelling, typing far too hurriedly.
synchrnous
asyncrnous
aysnchronous
Eurotunnle
Hope you can all read typoese.
Typoese I can cope with, it was the GTOs and IGBTs that threw me.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
BH Williams
2007-11-14 17:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by D7666
Err excuse spelling, typing far too hurriedly.
synchrnous
asyncrnous
aysnchronous
Eurotunnle
Hope you can all read typoese.
Typoese I can cope with, it was the GTOs and IGBTs that threw me.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Weren't the GTOs an all-female rock group, created by Kim Fowley..?
Re the change from GTO to IGBT seems, subjectively, to have produced a
locomotive that is both more powerful and, more importantly for me, more
reliable. My drivers seem to like them.
Brian
D7666
2007-11-14 18:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by BH Williams
Re the change from GTO to IGBT seems, subjectively, to have produced a
locomotive that is both more powerful and, more importantly for me, more
reliable.
DB / DSB / NSB all had/have reliability problems with 120 / EA / El16
with aging power electronics.

In the 373 scenario should utilisation increase, if rebuilding from
GTO to IGBT brings about siginifcant reliability (and maybe even allow
1 more set to be daily diagrammed) that alone might justify the work.

--
Nick
Mizter T
2007-11-16 00:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by D7666
Post by BH Williams
Re the change from GTO to IGBT seems, subjectively, to have produced a
locomotive that is both more powerful and, more importantly for me, more
reliable.
DB / DSB / NSB all had/have reliability problems with 120 / EA / El16
with aging power electronics.
In the 373 scenario should utilisation increase, if rebuilding from
GTO to IGBT brings about siginifcant reliability (and maybe even allow
1 more set to be daily diagrammed) that alone might justify the work.
--
Nick
Do the Eurostar 373's have reliability problems?

Also, could someone kindly decrypt the acronyms GTO and IGBT please?
David Biddulph
2007-11-16 08:59:10 UTC
Permalink
"Mizter T" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ff70c16d-fbe4-4486-a03b-***@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
...
Post by Mizter T
Also, could someone kindly decrypt the acronyms GTO and IGBT please?
Gate Turn-Off Thyristor
Isulated Gate Bipolar Transistor
--
David Biddulph
BH Williams
2007-11-16 09:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Biddulph
...
Post by Mizter T
Also, could someone kindly decrypt the acronyms GTO and IGBT please?
Gate Turn-Off Thyristor
Isulated Gate Bipolar Transistor
--
David Biddulph
I'm glad someone can remember the names of these bits of kit..
As to E* unreliability- I can't think of many failures on my patch, but when
they have failed, they have done so in spectacular manner. Ones that spring
to mind are:-
Two failing, almost opposite one another, as the snow that had accumulated
during their journeys across Southern England and Northern France melted and
tripped out power and control systems- that gave me a very interesting
shift...
One failing at the UK Portal, when part of the final drive assembly became
detached- fortunately, the train stopped before it became derailed, unlike
another member of the fleet which suffered a similar problem near Arras.
Brian
John Youles
2007-11-16 13:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Biddulph
...
Post by Mizter T
Also, could someone kindly decrypt the acronyms GTO and IGBT please?
Gate Turn-Off Thyristor
Isulated Gate Bipolar Transistor
This reminds me of the story of a trial judge who asked the lawyer F E Smith
(later Lord Birkenhead) for something to be explained to him. After Smith had
done so, the judge said "Mr Smith, I am still none the wiser" to which Smith
replied "No, my Lord, but much better informed !".
Mizter T
2007-11-16 18:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Youles
Post by David Biddulph
...
Post by Mizter T
Also, could someone kindly decrypt the acronyms GTO and IGBT please?
Gate Turn-Off Thyristor
Isulated Gate Bipolar Transistor
This reminds me of the story of a trial judge who asked the lawyer F E Smith
(later Lord Birkenhead) for something to be explained to him. After Smith had
done so, the judge said "Mr Smith, I am still none the wiser" to which Smith
replied "No, my Lord, but much better informed !".
Indeed! But at least I am now armed with the information to go off and
thoroughly confuse myself, should I so wish. I'm not sure I'm going to
do so, but I could!

Graeme Wall
2007-11-14 18:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by BH Williams
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by D7666
Err excuse spelling, typing far too hurriedly.
synchrnous
asyncrnous
aysnchronous
Eurotunnle
Hope you can all read typoese.
Typoese I can cope with, it was the GTOs and IGBTs that threw me.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Weren't the GTOs an all-female rock group, created by Kim Fowley..?
Wouldn't surprise me :-)
Post by BH Williams
Re the change from GTO to IGBT seems, subjectively, to have produced a
locomotive that is both more powerful and, more importantly for me, more
reliable. My drivers seem to like them.
Brian
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Lüko Willms
2007-11-14 17:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by D7666
Hope you can all read typoese.
I did not even notice the letter permutations.


Cheers,
L.W.
Lüko Willms
2007-11-14 17:38:33 UTC
Permalink
A soluton might be a mid life power car rebuld. Thas not as loopy as
is sounds - already Eurotunnle has ripped out the GTO in some of the
9000s and replaced by IGBT. They get more power from same space.
If you did that to a E* a scenario is not to incrwase overall power,
but use the space gain to fit the extra systems for HSL Zuid, LZB etc
etc while having a traction pack that can take all 4 euro supplies.
Sounds good. They could get DB in the boat, as with Thalys, and sell
the four Three Capitals sets which are not used for cross-Chunnel
traffic to DB for runs Cologne to London, without a stop in Brussels.


Cheers,
L.W.
p***@yahoo.co.uk
2007-11-10 23:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Lüko Willms
2007-11-10 23:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Just a thought that I have often wondered, how different would the
conception of the high-speed network in Europe be if German high-
speed technology had predated that of the French?
Trains would be wider and heavier.

Everything else is due to political and geographical, say
socio-economic differences between a country which knows only two
locations, namely Paris and "la province", and a country which existed
for hundreds of yours as a collection of warring little duodecimo
principalities.


Cheers,
L.W.
David Hansen
2007-11-11 09:48:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:18:04 -0800 someone who may be Mizter T
But perhaps you miss the point - the amount of public money swilling
around in various forms in the CTRL project is very substantial.
Indeed. Money from UK taxpayers for which those of us outwith the
London area will see very little. If we were whiners, like those who
whine about UK taxpayer's money being spent in Scotland, there would
be a lot of whining about this, but I haven't heard any.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Burt the Turk
2007-11-11 11:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hansen
Indeed. Money from UK taxpayers for which those of us outwith the
London area will see very little. If we were whiners, like those who
whine about UK taxpayer's money being spent in Scotland, there would
be a lot of whining about this, but I haven't heard any.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
OK it's time to 'fess up. We're not bothered about the taxes, it's
just an opportunity to express our dislike of the Scots.
It's absolutely nothing to do with better connecting the most
economically vibrant part of the UK with major markets.
Post by David Hansen
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
This .sig of yours makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that you
are in fact an obsessive loony.
The Good Doctor
2007-11-10 21:55:47 UTC
Permalink
But perhaps you miss the point - the amount of public money swilling
around in various forms in the CTRL project is very substantial. The
thing is the funding mechanisms are complex and I'm not going to
pretend that I've got my head around them all. In part I guess it
depends on how you count it and whether you include government backed
loans etc.
The economics are simple. London and Continental Railways are nominal
owners of St Pancras International, the "railway lands" around St
Pancras, High Speed 1 and Temple Mills Depot.

London and Continental Railways has a total debt of £6.1 billion, all
of which is guaranteed by the UK taxpayer. If LCR goes bump, the
taxpayer foots the entire bill.
However if the government wants to make LCR (owners of Eurostar UK
Ltd) do something I'm pretty sure LCR would comply. Apart from
anything else I think that since the 1998 government directed
restructuring of LCR, which came as a result of a crisis in the CTRL
project (basically they didn't have enough money to build it), the
government has a place on the LCR board and some kind of special share
in the company too.
Government gave LCR £2 billion towards the cost of the rail link and
guaranteed the whole of LCR's debts.
However I suspect that if a competitor wanted to gain access to Temple
Mills depot they could also have a recourse to the EU competition
directorate, who I presume could force LCR to open up the depot to
other operators.
There is nothing stopping another operator building a depot elsewhere.
There is no reason why Temple Mills would have to be made available to
a competitor.
What happens if LCR is broken up (which is what it would appear the
government wants to happen) is an interesting question. Would the
depot be in the ownership of the CTRL/HS1 infrastructure company or of
the Eurostar UK company - I'd presume the latter. However if and when
this break-up happens then I'd wager than some kind of undertaking
would be sought from the Eurostar UK company to ensure competitors
could have access to the depot.
The split would be arbitrary. Temple Mills could be included with the
trains and a licence to operate them. Or it could be included with
High Speed 1. The split has yet to be decided, but a sell-off is an
absolute certainty.

Why? Because LCR is losing large amounts of cash. Eurostar's
passenger figures are less than 40% of the projections that were
needed to justify the investment in High Speed 1 and St Pancras. LCR
has never made a penny profit on Eurostar operations and never will.

There is no money to pay for the interest on the £6.1 billion debt and
no money to pay for developing the railway lands around Kings Cross/St
Pancras. In all probability, LCR is trading insolvent because its
liabilities exceed its assets by a considerable margin, and the profit
and loss account is firmly in the red with no sign of improvement
anytime soon.

Crunch time will come when interest payments need to be made and there
is no money to pay. Wisely, the Government has decided to pre-empt
this by selling off LCR in three parts: Eurostar UK, High Speed 1 and
the property portfolio.

We can celebrate the wonderful restoration and renewal of St Pancras
(and it really is superb). We can celebrate the completion of High
Speed 1, which is an engineering achievement. But we must dismantle
the failing LCR before it becomes a total embarrassment and a huge
liability on the UK taxpayer.

This is as much of a fiasco as the Channel Tunnel project. In other
words, one of the largest corporate disasters in British history.

Nice tunnel, nice railway, nice trains. Just a pity that they are not
remotely viable, and probably never will be.
Lüko Willms
2007-11-12 16:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:55:47 UTC, schrieb The Good Doctor
Post by The Good Doctor
The economics are simple. London and Continental Railways are nominal
owners of St Pancras International, the "railway lands" around St
Pancras, High Speed 1 and Temple Mills Depot.
Not only that, they are also owners of "Eurostar (UK) Ltd" (EUKL),
the british part of the Eurostar consortium, which owns the 11 or so
"Three Capital" trainsets.

Kind of the only integrated railway on Great Britain.


Cheers,
L.W.
Lüko Willms
2007-11-12 16:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:55:47 UTC, schrieb The Good Doctor
Post by The Good Doctor
Nice tunnel, nice railway, nice trains. Just a pity that they are not
remotely viable, and probably never will be.
If the trains were not viable, they would not roll. But they have
transported millions of people from the continent to the largest
European island.

You have strange concepts of "viability".


L.W.
Arthur Figgis
2007-11-12 20:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Good Doctor
The split would be arbitrary. Temple Mills could be included with the
trains and a licence to operate them. Or it could be included with
High Speed 1. The split has yet to be decided, but a sell-off is an
absolute certainty.
Why? Because LCR is losing large amounts of cash. Eurostar's
passenger figures are less than 40% of the projections that were
needed to justify the investment in High Speed 1 and St Pancras. LCR
has never made a penny profit on Eurostar operations and never will.
There is no money to pay for the interest on the £6.1 billion debt and
no money to pay for developing the railway lands around Kings Cross/St
Pancras. In all probability, LCR is trading insolvent because its
liabilities exceed its assets by a considerable margin, and the profit
and loss account is firmly in the red with no sign of improvement
anytime soon.
Crunch time will come when interest payments need to be made and there
is no money to pay. Wisely, the Government has decided to pre-empt
this by selling off LCR in three parts: Eurostar UK, High Speed 1 and
the property portfolio.
How would the government actually go about selling off something which
doesn't belong to them, but belongs to SNCF, Bechtel, Arup, Systra,
Halcrow, EDF, National Express and UBS? Would the French government be
happy with the UK government acquiring SNCF property?
Post by The Good Doctor
We can celebrate the wonderful restoration and renewal of St Pancras
(and it really is superb). We can celebrate the completion of High
Speed 1, which is an engineering achievement. But we must dismantle
the failing LCR before it becomes a total embarrassment and a huge
liability on the UK taxpayer.
This is as much of a fiasco as the Channel Tunnel project. In other
words, one of the largest corporate disasters in British history.
Nice tunnel, nice railway, nice trains. Just a pity that they are not
remotely viable, and probably never will be.
How many schools and hospitals are economically viable?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
R.C. Payne
2007-11-13 13:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by The Good Doctor
The split would be arbitrary. Temple Mills could be included with the
trains and a licence to operate them. Or it could be included with
High Speed 1. The split has yet to be decided, but a sell-off is an
absolute certainty.
Why? Because LCR is losing large amounts of cash. Eurostar's
passenger figures are less than 40% of the projections that were
needed to justify the investment in High Speed 1 and St Pancras. LCR
has never made a penny profit on Eurostar operations and never will.
There is no money to pay for the interest on the £6.1 billion debt and
no money to pay for developing the railway lands around Kings Cross/St
Pancras. In all probability, LCR is trading insolvent because its
liabilities exceed its assets by a considerable margin, and the profit
and loss account is firmly in the red with no sign of improvement
anytime soon.
Crunch time will come when interest payments need to be made and there
is no money to pay. Wisely, the Government has decided to pre-empt
this by selling off LCR in three parts: Eurostar UK, High Speed 1 and
the property portfolio.
How would the government actually go about selling off something which
doesn't belong to them, but belongs to SNCF, Bechtel, Arup, Systra,
Halcrow, EDF, National Express and UBS? Would the French government be
happy with the UK government acquiring SNCF property?
Post by The Good Doctor
We can celebrate the wonderful restoration and renewal of St Pancras
(and it really is superb). We can celebrate the completion of High
Speed 1, which is an engineering achievement. But we must dismantle
the failing LCR before it becomes a total embarrassment and a huge
liability on the UK taxpayer.
This is as much of a fiasco as the Channel Tunnel project. In other
words, one of the largest corporate disasters in British history.
Nice tunnel, nice railway, nice trains. Just a pity that they are not
remotely viable, and probably never will be.
How many schools and hospitals are economically viable?
Plenty of schools in the UK, and the newspaper I read yesterday
suggested their market share is increasing.

Robin
Arthur Figgis
2007-11-14 19:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.C. Payne
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by The Good Doctor
The split would be arbitrary. Temple Mills could be included with the
trains and a licence to operate them. Or it could be included with
High Speed 1. The split has yet to be decided, but a sell-off is an
absolute certainty.
Why? Because LCR is losing large amounts of cash. Eurostar's
passenger figures are less than 40% of the projections that were
needed to justify the investment in High Speed 1 and St Pancras. LCR
has never made a penny profit on Eurostar operations and never will.
There is no money to pay for the interest on the £6.1 billion debt and
no money to pay for developing the railway lands around Kings Cross/St
Pancras. In all probability, LCR is trading insolvent because its
liabilities exceed its assets by a considerable margin, and the profit
and loss account is firmly in the red with no sign of improvement
anytime soon.
Crunch time will come when interest payments need to be made and there
is no money to pay. Wisely, the Government has decided to pre-empt
this by selling off LCR in three parts: Eurostar UK, High Speed 1 and
the property portfolio.
How would the government actually go about selling off something which
doesn't belong to them, but belongs to SNCF, Bechtel, Arup, Systra,
Halcrow, EDF, National Express and UBS? Would the French government be
happy with the UK government acquiring SNCF property?
Post by The Good Doctor
We can celebrate the wonderful restoration and renewal of St Pancras
(and it really is superb). We can celebrate the completion of High
Speed 1, which is an engineering achievement. But we must dismantle
the failing LCR before it becomes a total embarrassment and a huge
liability on the UK taxpayer.
This is as much of a fiasco as the Channel Tunnel project. In other
words, one of the largest corporate disasters in British history.
Nice tunnel, nice railway, nice trains. Just a pity that they are not
remotely viable, and probably never will be.
How many schools and hospitals are economically viable?
Plenty of schools in the UK, and the newspaper I read yesterday
suggested their market share is increasing.
Good point. Though they'll be the ones which other newspapers say should
be taxed as conventional businesses as a back-door way of knocking most
of them out of existence? :-)
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
The Good Doctor
2007-11-14 12:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Figgis
How many schools and hospitals are economically viable?
The economics are more complex, but taken as a whole, the education
and health sectors generate benefits that exceed their costs, so they
are most certainly viable.

And in terms of willingness to pay, the majority of people would
strongly prefer to see investment made in health and education rather
than in rail.
Arthur Figgis
2007-11-11 18:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lüko Willms
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:52:12 UTC, schrieb Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Temple Mills has provision to maintain TVM (not surprisingly)
I guess you mean that there are maintenance facilites for TVM, but
not that the link to the depot is equipped with TVM, right?
Where can I find those informations?
Post by Arthur Figgis
and can in principle handle a TGV Duplex. Some of the depot roads can be switched
between 1.5, 3 and 25 kV, but it doesn't have 15 kV (yet...).
The latter is not supported by Eurostar trains, and wont be. It
would require a newly built train.
Or a German train to get let in...

For the rest, it is useful that
Post by Lüko Willms
those power supplies can be tested. At the Griesheim maintenance depot
in Frankfurt, they have similar facilities, plus, of course 15 kV~16.7
Hz.
Post by Arthur Figgis
Given how much money the taxpayer has put into the depot,
State subsidy for an installation belonging to Eurostar?
Investment. You "invest" in things you support, while you "subsidise"
things you don't like :-)

Technically it might not be Eurostar's, rather some other part of LCR.
Of course Eurostar is partly owned buy foreign states anyway!
Post by Lüko Willms
Interesting...
Anyway, I suppose any continental railway company who would want to
send direct trains to London would want to collaborate with Eurostar
within the framework of Railteam.
It will be interesting to see if that really happens, or if it fizzles
out or becomes something which only anoraks know about.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Paul Scott
2007-11-10 20:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lüko Willms
But on Google Earths satellite image, I see a rail track merging
northwards into that line, just at the southern end of the Temple
Mills Depot hall. But that may have been there just for the
construction of the link between Stratford Int'l and the depot, and
only provisional.
Anyway, having access to such a depot is also a problem for any
train operating company which might think of sending trains from the
continent to London in competition with Eurostar. Either one doesn't
have any maintenence facility on the island, which is a risky
undertaking, or one comes to an agreement with Eurostar, or one has to
invest into some other means (EWS has or used to have a little shed
for locomotives just north of the Eurostar Temple Mills depot).
EWS's little shed is currently being demolished. Only 6 or 7 years old.
'Railway Magazine' reckons Eurostar's depot will expand northwards, another
version is something to do with the Olympics is to be built there - new
carriage sidings to replace Thornton Fields perhaps?

Paul
Peter Masson
2007-11-10 09:06:12 UTC
Permalink
- "My CTRL contact reckons Ashford has been fitted with KVB"
Unfortunately, the conversation finishes at this point but I wonder if
anyone else on this forum might be able to clear this one up for us?
If anyone is able to provide an authoritative answer, it would be helpful if
they were also able to comment on signalling for CTRL-DS. Class 395
(Hitachi, Javelin, or Bullet trains according to individual preference) will
need AWS/TPWS for running into and beyond the domestic platforms at Ashford
International, and beyond Ebbsfleet International on the North Kent route.
But how are platforms 11-13 at St Pancras Internatiobnal signalled - are
they AWS/TPWS or KVB?

Peter
Lüko Willms
2007-11-10 10:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:06:12 UTC, schrieb "Peter Masson"
Post by Peter Masson
If anyone is able to provide an authoritative answer, it would be helpful if
they were also able to comment on signalling for CTRL-DS. Class 395
(Hitachi, Javelin, or Bullet trains according to individual preference) will
need AWS/TPWS for running into and beyond the domestic platforms at Ashford
International, and beyond Ebbsfleet International on the North Kent route.
But how are platforms 11-13 at St Pancras Internatiobnal signalled - are
they AWS/TPWS or KVB?
From the HS1 "Network Statement":

"For St. Pancras International Station and its approaches, KVB is
required" (Section 3.3.3.1 "Signalling Systems").

"St. Pancras International Station is part of the HS1 Network except
that the tracks, signals, railway telecommunications and OHLE in
platforms 1 to 4 inclusive are part of the NRIL
Network. In addition immediately adjacent to the International Station
and partly underneath it, is a NRIL operated station serving the line
between Farringdon and Kentish Town, which is
also part of the NRIL Network." (Section 3.2.1 "Limits" in 3.1 "Extent
of Network") (The latter being Thameslink, I guess).

So, the regional services operating on HS1 do require both TVM430
and KVB and AWS/TPWS for the National Rail network beyond HS1 (e.g.
the branch to the North Kent Line from Ebbsfleet International,
branches from Ashford), while the Midland Main Lines operating from
platforms 1 to 4 would just need AWS/TPWS.


Cheers,
L.W.
Richard Mlynarik
2007-11-11 00:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lüko Willms
Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
For example, the Network statement of Highspeed 1 explains that the
international platforms at Ashford can accommodate UIC GB+ vehicles.
while the rest of HS1 conforms to UIC GC.
UIC loading gauges are GA, GB, and GC (I guess, the "G" means
"General"). [...]
"Gabarit C" = "Lichtraumprofil C" = "Loading Gauge C"
d***@live.co.uk
2007-11-10 21:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
The technical requirements for allowing other high-speed trains to
travel through the Channel Tunnel have been discussed here once or
twice and it seems there is a healthy disagreement as to whether
another train will pass through the tunnel. However, assuming that one
does finally get here by fair means or foul, what design changes
might have to be made before it could stop at Ashford or other
stations not located on Highspeed 1?
For example, the Network statement of Highspeed 1 explains that the
international platforms at Ashford can accommodate UIC GB+ vehicles.
It also says the wire height through Ashford is lower than for
Highspeed1 and that trains wishing to use Ashford would require AWS/
TPWS signalling systems.
Not being a technical sort of person, I have no idea what this all
would mean for other existing high-speed trains if they ever wished to
stop in Ashford. Could an ICE or TGV already do so or would there
first need to be changes to the train or to the infrastructure
provided? Would any changes made for stopping at Ashford also be
sufficient to allow the trains to stop at stations on the WCML?
From 2010 the route called HS1 has to offer open access operators two
paths an hour. The biggest obstacle in any such operators way is
funding the trains that meet the safety requirements of the Channel
Tunnel, provided they are not relaxed in the meantime. But according
to Siemens the ICE3M train as operated by the Germans at present,
already meets these rules. So if an open access operator managed to
lease/buy such trains they could run to London.
Lüko Willms
2007-11-13 15:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@live.co.uk
trains that meet the safety requirements of the Channel
Tunnel, provided they are not relaxed in the meantime. But according
to Siemens the ICE3M train as operated by the Germans at present,
already meets these rules.
Is there any public source for that claim by Siemens Transportation?



Curious,
L.W.
D7666
2007-11-14 16:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lüko Willms
Post by d***@live.co.uk
to Siemens the ICE3M train as operated by the Germans at present,
already meets these rules.
Is there any public source for that claim by Siemens Transportation?
None that I know of - but if you refer to my other recent post
suggesting that UIC/TSI drew a lot from and incorporate the basics of
the IGC rules it might be that a fully up to date UIC/TSI compliant
train *might* meet current IGC by default. or would be very close to
it.

--
Nick
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...