I like how Mr O'Sullivan saw fit to mention California in the first sentence. If he hadn't, I would have.
France’s new high-speed trains
91–100 of 239 posts
Re: France’s new high-speed trains
#92"the train’s shorter engine (59 feet instead of the current 72) opens up as much as 20 percent more space for passengers"
Does it? Why?
The max percentage increase is going to be for the shortest trains, where space isn't an issue anyway.
But then even ignoring that, does the driver need a platform? Why not have the two motor units overhang the platform?
Re: France’s new high-speed trains
#93SNCF is fiddling with the wrong things. It doesn't need to separate train operations from rail track network maintenance. It doesn't need to open up the network to competition. What it needs to do is cut the number of excessive public sector workers, reduce costs, and stop running the business like a political arm of the government. I can bet that the reason they think they need to do all these things is that cost pr…
[deleted]
Re: France’s new high-speed trains
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really not a fair reflection. Privatisation came after nearly 20 years of Tory under investment and far from adequate under several administrations previously. It was, by the time of Major, a very predictable and well-worn trope. What better way to "prove" your lawn needs a private mowing service than barely mowing the lawn for a decade or two? It's quite easy to see why rolling stock was far beyond expected l…
Rail subsidies are highly regressive. The rail network primarily connects cities to cities via relatively affluent suburbs. If you live on a council estate and work in a factory, it's highly unlikely that you have the option of commuting by rail. Very few workers with below-average incomes have the need to travel from Manchester to London for a meeting. Rail travel is inherently more expensive than other modes and al…
Many of those affluent suburbs became wealthy because of the station and rail link to London. The less-affluent suburbs are often those Mr Beeching ripped connection from, by removing most of the branch line network.
In the rest of the country, I've never felt surrounded by wealth on trains. Mostly it just seemed like the same mix of regular people you'd see anywhere.
Re: France’s new high-speed trains
#95SNCF is fiddling with the wrong things. It doesn't need to separate train operations from rail track network maintenance. It doesn't need to open up the network to competition. What it needs to do is cut the number of excessive public sector workers, reduce costs, and stop running the business like a political arm of the government. I can bet that the reason they think they need to do all these things is that cost pr…
> It doesn't need to open up the network to competition. I think this is mandated by the EU. And it could be a good thing. I'm personally fed up to be treated like a thief when I forgot composting my ticket (which happen because there is not gate to access the rails) or when I could not buy it in the first place (some station doesn't have have vending machines). Also the price lottery for TGV tickets is infuriating (…
The JR service comes at a cost. Shinkansen tickets are vastly more expensive than TGV.
Re: France’s new high-speed trains
#96SNCF is fiddling with the wrong things. It doesn't need to separate train operations from rail track network maintenance. It doesn't need to open up the network to competition. What it needs to do is cut the number of excessive public sector workers, reduce costs, and stop running the business like a political arm of the government. I can bet that the reason they think they need to do all these things is that cost pr…
"SNCF is fiddling with the wrong things.
It doesn't need to separate train operations from rail track network maintenance. It doesn't need to open up the network to competition"
I'm guessing this is being imposed on SNCF by national and European government.
In their defence they seem to be doing the right things. They're preparing for competition by lowering their costs etc.
The proposed system of giving each region the power to grant a monopoly seems a bit ill considered though.
Re: France’s new high-speed trains
#97SNCF is fiddling with the wrong things. It doesn't need to separate train operations from rail track network maintenance. It doesn't need to open up the network to competition. What it needs to do is cut the number of excessive public sector workers, reduce costs, and stop running the business like a political arm of the government. I can bet that the reason they think they need to do all these things is that cost pr…
"Public rail is a money-losing venture" So are public schools, public hospitals and national defence. But they are enablers of everything else that we do and the actual purpose of government and taxes. Public transport needs to be as efficient as it can be while providing the services needed . There are additional benefits like providing a training environment for trades, ensuring that a heavy engineering skillbase i…
So you're saying that a publicly funded utility should provide some kind of beneficial service to the public? Like it's some kind of public service?
Re: France’s new high-speed trains
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really not a fair reflection. Privatisation came after nearly 20 years of Tory under investment and far from adequate under several administrations previously. It was, by the time of Major, a very predictable and well-worn trope. What better way to "prove" your lawn needs a private mowing service than barely mowing the lawn for a decade or two? It's quite easy to see why rolling stock was far beyond expected l…
> Separating track, rolling stock and station building into three different companies was nuts. Public subsidy plummeted after privatisation, until inadequate maintenance was identified as cause of the Hatfield crash. Then reached never before seen peaks. They're still fiddling around to try and remove the systemic consequences of how it was privatised. Nothing that even slightly resembles the integrated transport Th…
Whether by accident, or design, The Netherlands seem much more able to have transport options that join up. Buses that terminate at the train station, tram routes that serve both, park and ride that serves all. With compatible timetables and ticketing. After reading the piece about Delft cycle routes yesterday, I suspect a reasonable part was by design. I'm sure someone native can point out some major holes, but still from my UK perspective it seems to work very well. :)
UK still happily has bus, train and tram routes that only sort-of join up, sometimes, often by accident. The bus might arrive at the station 5 minutes after the express leaves, etc.
> tracks + trains as a business is very different from roads + vehicles
I'm no rail expert either, but I'll waffle on a bit. :)
It's much closer to air than road - you can't just throw more trains out there, they need slots, separation and compatible timetabling with the others. On a road you can just put out another bus and see which survives, they can even have the same timetable if you like.
The problem I see with UK privatisation is the competition is a myth, but it's been made bloody complicated for the sake of it - for example "what is the "optimal" penalty that the train operator...". A single train operator gets a single regional franchise, yet at least three companies are involved in every route (track, train, buildings). The old train builders, station hotels, and catering had already been sold off.
The old big 4 (GWR, LNER, LMS, SR) owned track, station and train, a train builder, the station hotel and caterer too - if they want to add a new route it wasn't a nightmare of inter-company contracts, or trying to persuade another company to keep the building staffed another hour, or to put new sign on a station wall. No penalties or silliness, just service embarrassment, maybe a government requirement or two. Only when you got to an interchange station did it become multi-company. Course that meant there wasn't much competition - well no kidding. Before the big 4 there was more competition, often from duplicate lines. Also more than one company running trains on lines, though one rail company always owned the infrastructure and rented a slot. So more coexistence than competition.
We missed an opportunity several times to get the main lines electrified - West coast main line was asking for electrification for about 40 years before it got it. Same for expanding to 4 lines so slow and fast can run together more easily, and freight can expand. Beeching destroyed a lot of the joined up nature of our rail, and much of the branch network. We bought in too heavily to the car as the only answer. Thanks to the curse of being early, we may never get double decker trains - that would need countless bridges and tunnels being modified or rebuilt.
Re: France’s new high-speed trains
#99Related, in France as well: Hyperloop TT is developing, in Toulouse, the futuristic hyperloop idea: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/26/hyperloop-firm-unveils-first...
Not exactly something to be proud of. Also
"The idea was envisioned by Tesla CEO Elon Musk in a white paper in 2013". No, it was hyped by Musk, the idea dates back to 1904
Re: France’s new high-speed trains
#100SNCF is fiddling with the wrong things. It doesn't need to separate train operations from rail track network maintenance. It doesn't need to open up the network to competition. What it needs to do is cut the number of excessive public sector workers, reduce costs, and stop running the business like a political arm of the government. I can bet that the reason they think they need to do all these things is that cost pr…
> Public rail is a money-losing venture, ... But it's important to have. Just how much money-losing depends on the political environment and skill of the management. Arguably, all public rail should lose money. Quality transportation is a huge economic driver of regional economies. If a rail service is making money, it likely means governments are underinvesting in their own economies.
It usually also means that public transport is too expensive for those who are in need of it the most (e.g. people who can’t afford a car or for whom owning a car doesn’t make any sense — which is arguably more common in Europe than the US)