[fra] The French railways and the monopole of the TGV
Sette_Bello
As a French citizen, it may seem odd, but I'm dissatisfied with the
railway system of my country.
Say 'French railway', and u immediately think 'TGV'. But is the TGV up
to its reputation ?
So far, most EU countries have gotten high-speed trains. But no
country has as many high-speed lines as France.
That enables the railways of this country to be very competitive for
long-distance journeys, mostly from Paris. But the TGV technology also
has faults, which are rarely evoked by the French press and opinion
leaders.
Ok, you can leave Paris and arrive in Lille one hour later and that's
ok. But the trouble is the territories located between are overlooked,
since there's no station between, except a station nicknamed the "corn
station" because it's lost in the fields.
The rise of the TGV has been made at the expense of the classic
trains, whether they're regional, suburban or Inter-City non TGV
(so-called Corail).
The Corail trains are cheaper and more comfortable than the Tgv but
have been systematically suppressed when in parrallel with the Tgv.
The rise of the TGV has favored long-distance travelers, mostly
executives, and neglected short and middle-distance journeys, which
are yet much more frequent : even in France, 90% of the journeys and
50 % of the vk made by train are made on non-TGV trains...
And this should continue beacause the Sncf intends to shut down the
Inter City relations between provincial cities like Bordeaux-Nantes -
yet 2 very important cities. And the French railways are very old, 30
years in average, older than in Belgium (19 y.), Germany (22) or
Switzerland (15).
Generally, the frequency (how often trains circulate on a given line)
on the French network is very poor. If you compare to Italy, Germany
or Belgium, it's obvious. The low density of population of France
can't account for that, because even in very populated territories,
there are relatively few trains in France.
Take Paris-Rouen. Paris is the EU's largest metropolitan area. Rouen
is located less than 150 km away from Paris. And there's LESS THAN one
train per hour. Compare that with Brussels-Gent, two smaller cities,
wherer there are 3 trains/hour.
Or compare Marseilles-Nice with Venice Milan.
The French rairoad officials have made a clean sweep of everything
that made a rail journey nice : no more restaurant, no more comfort,
etc... They have refused any technology different from Tgv. There is
no tilting train for domestic services in France, and everything shows
there will not be in the future.
Obsessed by the concurrence of the planes, the French officials have
"copied and pasted" the aircarriers. They've created a very rigid
system (it's compulsory to book your seat on all Tgv) ; and Tgv is
more and more expensive. In everyday conversation in France, it's
become commonplace to say that "the train is very expensive".
The French are very proud of their rail system. Some even say it's the
best one in the world. I don't think it deserves such a glory.
What do u think of that, as French or non-French citizen ?
sb
Marc Van Dyck
Nivelles-Brussels-Paris Nd-Paris Mp-Irun-Lisbon and back,
and the most uncomfortable part has been the Paris-Irun leg.
Even the belgian IC (AM96 at that time, now M6 double deckers)
is more confortable than Thalys and TGV. Thalys Paris-Brussels
lasts 90 mins, so it's mostly OK, but Paris-Irun, 6 hours
cramped in a 2nd class seat of a TGV Atlantique set, it's
almost a form of torture... Never again, that one!
I agree with you that the SNCF practice of eliminating all
classical trains that run parallel to a TGV line is a disaster.
Look at the old Paris-Brussels route, for example, and try a
journey, let's say, Brussels-Saint Quentin. All classical
trains served that station (even some TEE did), now it's almost
impossible. Impossible too to get to Maubeuge or Valenciennes.
For people living there, the advent of the TGV has been a
catastrophy.
I even believe that it is the main reason why people complain
so loudly when a LGV construction takes place in their area.
They know that they will get all the nuisances, but nothing
in return. At least when it's a motorway that's being built,
there will be an exit ramp nearby.
SNCF for me is the perfect example of 'how not to run a railway'
and has been so for the last ten years at least (and I don't hold
my breath hoping to see that changing, not in my lifetime). More
annoying, they try (and sometimes succeed, unfortunately) to
export their management model to other countries : see for example
Belgium and the cancellation of all classical trains to Aachen.
The only hope I have is the passenger train market opening to
other companies : may be that the markets segments that SNCF has
decided to ignore deliberately will be taken over by other companies
that will exploit them successfully. A ver light hope, sure, but
a hope anyway.
Kind regards,
Sette_Bello a pensé très fort :
--
Marc Van Dyck
Montcharmont F
were from/to Paris , first . Second , France is different with England ,
Belgium , Germany ,and Netherland . In those country you find between 200
and 300 inhabitants in a square kilometer and 100 only in France . France is
a coountry with big cities and small villages . Road network have been made
efficient last 20 years , that permit good relations in all the country ,
even in the Massif Central where train is dead . High speed between big
cities need no stops . Small cities would get regiotrains but local
authorities do not want to spend much money . Train is competitive in other
countrys because english road network is old , Germans and dutches motorways
are overcrowed and in towns area , Italians road network is slow , due to
mountains in a part of the country , in other place where the ground is flat
inhabitants density is very high ( Po valley ) . In the eighties and
nineties ( and probably later) , all the SNCF investments were concentrated
in high speed lines and high speed rolling stock . Other rolling stock were
paid by local authorities ( except class 26000 and 27000 ). SNCF spend money
only if it could make benefits .
Have a nice day.
Bigfoot . Den Norsker Fransken togfarer
"Sette_Bello" <v_d...@nomade.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
e44f86b0.04040...@posting.google.com...
B.Rumary
> The rise of the TGV has favored long-distance travelers, mostly
> executives, and neglected short and middle-distance journeys, which
> are yet much more frequent : even in France, 90% of the journeys and
> 50 % of the vk made by train are made on non-TGV trains...
>
business executive are all that matter. Our politicians are all in the
pay of big corporations, and things are more and more run to suit them,
with us peasants paying the taxes to finance for their demands.
Brian Rumary, England
Jeremie Feinblatt
I must say I disagree pretty much with you. Your arguments lack an in-depth
approach of the current railways system in France and throughout Europe.
SNCF and TGV in particular has reshaped the French landscape and shortened
distances. From Paris to Marseille in 3 hours or Paris to Strasbourg in 2:20
in a couple of years is something no other European country has managed.
Unlike what you say, very few European countries have high speed rail:
Germany only has one true 300kph HS line between Frankfurt and Koln, Spain
has one between Madrid and Seville and one under construction to Barcelona
and Italy has a slow HS line (250 kph) between Rome and Florence. I would
say TGV represents over 60% of European HS rail in terms of traffic. Indeed
the TGV is made for intercity transport and not regional transport. Unlike
Die Bahn's, whose networked structure makes most ICE stop at many local
areas, TGVgets a traveller from point A to B in a minimum connecting time.
And when you say it's geared towards "executives", I actually think you are
wrong. 25% of TGV travel is business oriented (unlike 40% on the Italian
high speed rail) and over 80% of tickets are purchased with seem kind of
discount. New pricing structures such as Prem's or "Vente derničre minute"
allows rooms for cheapest fares (25? for any TGV), when available.
With regards to regional or long distance Corail trains, you are partly
right today they were cannibalised by TGV. But the fact of the matter is
that most Corail trains are unprofitable and cannot guarantee long term
growth. However, with the new Corail Teoz, SNCF has invested in refurbishing
rolling stock for its Corail and aims to develop the Teoz on a few lines.
Regional trains are, as you may know, run by the regional authorities and I
believe dialogue with SNCF for scheduling and transfer is not always best.
As far as the network is concerned, I must stress that SNCF has Europe's
densest network, perhaps behind DB. It is hard to compare a country with
35,000 km of tracks with a country like Switzerland or Belgium that run
"commuter trains" hourly.
I any case, I have read the new book "SNCF, machine infernale", criticizing
many aspects of the SNCF. Although some are certainly true, I believe people
should put in perspective what the French railways have to offer with
regards to external elements (pricing pressure from RFF for tolls paid by
SNCF) and other European railways.
-Jeremie Feinblatt
"Sette_Bello" <v_d...@nomade.fr> a écrit dans le message de
news:e44f86b0.04040...@posting.google.com...
P.L.Guillemin
Jeremie Feinblatt <jf...@9online.fr> a écrit dans le message :
c5ecqp$55l$1...@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net...
> Hello,
>
> I must say I disagree pretty much with you. Your arguments lack an
in-depth
> approach of the current railways system in France and throughout Europe.
> SNCF and TGV in particular has reshaped the French landscape and shortened
> distances. From Paris to Marseille in 3 hours or Paris to Strasbourg in
2:20
With loads of collateral damages, though...
> in a couple of years is something no other European country has managed.
> Unlike what you say, very few European countries have high speed rail:
> Germany only has one true 300kph HS line between Frankfurt and Koln,
Other NBS are tailored for 280kph IIRC.
Their geometrical specs often allow for higher speeds, but RE250 catenary
and LZB would require an upgrade...
Spain
> has one between Madrid and Seville and one under construction to Barcelona
Other HSLs are under construction:
Cordoba-Malaga, with a branch to Granada
Madrid-Valladolid-Irun/Bilbao/Gijon/A Coruna
Madrid-Valencia/Alicante
Works on other HSL are also to begin very soon.
By the end of this decade, Spain will have the largest HS network in Europe.
> and Italy has a slow HS line (250 kph)
The route is compatible with 300kph North of Rovezzano, and such upgrade is
on the agenda.
between Rome and Florence.
Other LGVs (LAAC) are under consytruction. While these have fallen behind
schedule, they will unavitably open, sooner or later...
I would
> say TGV represents over 60% of European HS rail in terms of traffic.
Indeed
> the TGV is made for intercity transport and not regional transport.
There are many missed opportunities in high-speed regional traffic in
France...
And that has damaged traffic potential :-(((
Unlike
> Die Bahn's, whose networked structure makes most ICE stop at many local
> areas, TGVgets a traveller from point A to B in a minimum connecting time.
> And when you say it's geared towards "executives", I actually think you
are
> wrong. 25% of TGV travel is business oriented (unlike 40% on the Italian
> high speed rail) and over 80% of tickets are purchased with seem kind of
> discount.
Among those travelling with a discount, you have loads of Business
Travellers, which use Season Tickets....
The share of Business travellers also depends very much on the route: While
these are predominant on Paris-Lyons, they are almost nonexistent on
Paris-Nice.
New pricing structures such as Prem's or "Vente dernière minute"
> allows rooms for cheapest fares (25? for any TGV), when available.
The paradox with TGV fares is that average yield is too low to break even on
a lasting basis, while those not entitled to a discount (either because they
do not meet the requirements or owing to quota-exhaustion) really cough up
high fares for a very, very average service.
> With regards to regional or long distance Corail trains, you are partly
> right today they were cannibalised by TGV. But the fact of the matter is
> that most Corail trains are unprofitable
Very questionable.
and cannot guarantee long term
> growth. However, with the new Corail Teoz, SNCF has invested in
refurbishing
> rolling stock for its Corail and aims to develop the Teoz on a few lines.
But Teoz will not run on all the lines where it was promised 2 years ago,
and that refurbishment is more or less a bad joke IMHO.
> Regional trains are, as you may know, run by the regional authorities and
I
> believe dialogue with SNCF for scheduling and transfer is not always best.
> As far as the network is concerned, I must stress that SNCF has Europe's
> densest network, perhaps behind DB.
Doubt so.
Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, the Czech republic and Britain (but not the UK)
have a denser network.
> I any case, I have read the new book "SNCF, machine infernale",
criticizing
> many aspects of the SNCF. Although some are certainly true, I believe
people
> should put in perspective what the French railways have to offer with
> regards to external elements (pricing pressure from RFF for tolls paid by
> SNCF) and other European railways.
RFF user charges are relatively low. In total, they account only for half of
the operating costs of RFF...
Best regards
Phil
Sette_Bello
> Hello,
>
> I must say I disagree pretty much with you.
Your arguments lack an in-depth
> approach of the current railways system in France and throughout Europe.
> SNCF and TGV in particular has reshaped the French landscape and shortened
> distances. From Paris to Marseille in 3 hours or Paris to Strasbourg in 2:20
> in a couple of years is something no other European country has managed.
> Unlike what you say, very few European countries have high speed rail:
> Germany only has one true 300kph HS line between Frankfurt and Koln, Spain
> has one between Madrid and Seville and one under construction to Barcelona
> and Italy has a slow HS line (250 kph) between Rome and Florence.
...don't forget Belgium (Brussels-Lille & Brussels-Liege) and Sweden
(Goteborg-Stockolm, even if, in the latter case, it's not a new line
properly speaking) and the UK (London-Ashford).
That means most large countries (by geographic criteria) actually have
igh-speed trains.
I would
> say TGV represents over 60% of European HS rail in terms of traffic.
I remember France has about 50 % of EU's high speed LINES. For
passenger traffic, I don't exactly know, but your estimation seems
correct. But don't forget that TGV pasengers figures given by the Sncf
overvalues the impact of high speed, because an important part of
passengers counted as 'TGV passengers' actually travel in a TGV
running on a classic line, which means not faster than a Corail.
Indeed
> the TGV is made for intercity transport and not regional transport. Unlike
> Die Bahn's, whose networked structure makes most ICE stop at many local
> areas, TGVgets a traveller from point A to B in a minimum connecting time.
That's what I object to. It's like aircraft and the "network effect"
decreases.
> And when you say it's geared towards "executives", I actually think you are
> wrong. 25% of TGV travel is business oriented (unlike 40% on the Italian
> high speed rail) and over 80% of tickets are purchased with seem kind of
> discount.
According to Sncf, a littel less (about 3/4). But first, we should
take these figures with caution, because nobody can verify them, and
Sncf has an interest in overvalueing them, to cpnvey the image of
'TGV-train-for all". And these reductions are calculated from the full
fare, which is hiagher and higher.
New pricing structures such as Prem's or "Vente derničre minute"
> allows rooms for cheapest fares (25? for any TGV), when available.
>
> With regards to regional or long distance Corail trains, you are partly
> right today they were cannibalised by TGV. But the fact of the matter is
> that most Corail trains are unprofitable and cannot guarantee long term
> growth. However, with the new Corail Teoz, SNCF has invested in refurbishing
> rolling stock for its Corail and aims to develop the Teoz on a few lines.
Teoz is a true joke. It's as if you got a cosmetic surgery and told me
'see, I'm a new man'. Teoz fares are almost 10% more expensive,
booking your seat becomes compulsory. And the counterpart is that Sncf
gives up running many intercity lines.
> Regional trains are, as you may know, run by the regional authorities and I
> believe dialogue with SNCF for scheduling and transfer is not always best.
> As far as the network is concerned, I must stress that SNCF has Europe's
> densest network, perhaps behind DB. It is hard to compare a country with
> 35,000 km of tracks with a country like Switzerland or Belgium that run
> "commuter trains" hourly.
>
> I any case, I have read the new book "SNCF, machine infernale", criticizing
> many aspects of the SNCF. Although some are certainly true, I believe people
> should put in perspective what the French railways have to offer with
> regards to external elements (pricing pressure from RFF for tolls paid by
> SNCF) and other European railways.
I've read it, and I don't agree with the viewpoints of the authors of
thaht book.
>
Sette_Bello
> Well, I could not agree more. Last summer, I've done
> Nivelles-Brussels-Paris Nd-Paris Mp-Irun-Lisbon and back,
> and the most uncomfortable part has been the Paris-Irun leg.
> Even the belgian IC (AM96 at that time, now M6 double deckers)
> is more confortable than Thalys and TGV. Thalys Paris-Brussels
> lasts 90 mins, so it's mostly OK, but Paris-Irun, 6 hours
> cramped in a 2nd class seat of a TGV Atlantique set, it's
> almost a form of torture... Never again, that one!
Bordeaux and "benefited" from the Tgv for a few years. Awful. You
travel on Fridays and Sundays, the train is overcrowded, you pay very
high prices. You don't spare much time, just one hour to Paris. And
people around me would say 'hoooooow, Tgv is truly great !!!". How
stupid.
A French politician said that France has the world's most stupid
right-wing politicians. I think that it hasthe most stupid
middle-class !!!
>
> I agree with you that the SNCF practice of eliminating all
> classical trains that run parallel to a TGV line is a disaster.
> Look at the old Paris-Brussels route, for example, and try a
> journey, let's say, Brussels-Saint Quentin. All classical
> trains served that station (even some TEE did), now it's almost
> impossible. Impossible too to get to Maubeuge or Valenciennes.
> For people living there, the advent of the TGV has been a
> catastrophy.
It will also be with the TGV Est. NO train Paris-Strasbourg will stop
between these two cities. There will just be 8 trains in each
direction between Paris and Metz / Nancy. For the smaller towns like
Chalons sur Marne, Charelveille Mezieres, or Epinal, I prefer not to
think about it...
Worse : They wanna open stations in the fields, without connections
with the classic lines ; and close the stations in towns like Verdun
or Bar-le-Duc !!!
It's gonna be a bloodbath !!!
>
> I even believe that it is the main reason why people complain
> so loudly when a LGV construction takes place in their area.
> They know that they will get all the nuisances, but nothing
> in return. At least when it's a motorway that's being built,
> there will be an exit ramp nearby.
Absolutely. But from Paris they're considered mere "nimbyists" (NIMBY
= Not In My Back Yard").
>
> SNCF for me is the perfect example of 'how not to run a railway'
> and has been so for the last ten years at least (and I don't hold
> my breath hoping to see that changing, not in my lifetime). More
> annoying, they try (and sometimes succeed, unfortunately) to
> export their management model to other countries : see for example
> Belgium and the cancellation of all classical trains to Aachen.
See why the international trains from and to Belgium have decreased in
2003... it may be conjonctural but it may also be the beginning of the
limits of the TGV model : by targeting long distance and business
travelers, you target a small number of people. Which can't be
extended undefinitely.
>
> The only hope I have is the passenger train market opening to
> other companies : may be that the markets segments that SNCF has
> decided to ignore deliberately will be taken over by other companies
> that will exploit them successfully. A ver light hope, sure, but
> a hope anyway.
Maybe a private company will consider transporting people from Paris
to Lille, by the classic line, a more longer journey but less pricey.
But I' not sure it will bring much profit...
>
> Kind regards,
see u soon
sb
P.L.Guillemin
Sette_Bello <v_d...@nomade.fr> a écrit dans le message :
e44f86b0.0404...@posting.google.com...
> "Jeremie Feinblatt" <jf...@9online.fr> wrote in message
news:<c5ecqp$55l$1...@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net>...
> (Goteborg-Stockolm, even if, in the latter case, it's not a new line
> properly speaking)
Europakörridoren/Götälandsbanan will see light there by 2015.
and the UK (London-Ashford).
>
> That means most large countries (by geographic criteria) actually have
> igh-speed trains.
Belgium also has such HSLs, and Switzerland is soon to join the club.
> I would
> > say TGV represents over 60% of European HS rail in terms of traffic.
> I remember France has about 50 % of EU's high speed LINES. For
> passenger traffic, I don't exactly know, but your estimation seems
> correct. But don't forget that TGV pasengers figures given by the Sncf
> overvalues the impact of high speed, because an important part of
> passengers counted as 'TGV passengers' actually travel in a TGV
> running on a classic line, which means not faster than a Corail.
Which means than off-LGVs, TGV brings little benefits, if any.
> eoz fares are almost 10% more expensive,
This increase would be fair enough is Téoz brought real benefits, which is
very debatable.
> booking your seat becomes compulsory.
Again, one could swallow the pill if there were real improvements.
[the new book "SNCF, machine infernale"]
> I've read it, and I don't agree with the viewpoints of the authors of
> thaht book.
I ve read it, too.
While authors got figures and dates wrong, there is some truth in what they
wrote, although their investigations should have been broader and more
in-depth.
Best regards
Phil
P.L.Guillemin
> I commuted between Libourne and Paris. Libourne is a middle town near
> Bordeaux and "benefited" from the Tgv for a few years. Awful. You
> travel on Fridays and Sundays, the train is overcrowded,
And overcrowding is quite something in a 2nd-class TGV A trailer...
you pay very
> high prices.
Depends. Many can claim a discount But those paying the full fare are truly
randsomed. And not better considered by the staff, even if they hold a
"Grand Voyageur" Card.
You don't spare much time, just one hour to Paris. And
> people around me would say 'hoooooow, Tgv is truly great !!!". How
> stupid.
Quite simply because most of these have little experience, if any, of how
railways can work in other countries. Many think that Britain's Railways are
just a set of accidents, and ignore the positive aspects of Britain's
railways, like Saver fares, rolling-stock renewal, staffing on mainline
services, dense traffic in South London...
Little of them are also aware that Italy was the first european country to
open HSLs in the after-war period.
Even fewer of them are aware of what's going on South of the Pyrenees, where
leading trends in tomorrow's railway are taking shape.
> It will also be with the TGV Est. NO train Paris-Strasbourg will stop
> between these two cities.
Hard to convey any cabotage traffic if calling at stations located in the
countryside, as in Reims-Bezannes TGV, Meuse TGV and Louvigny Lorraine
TGV...
Paris-Frankfurt services will also run fast from Paris to Forbach or
Saarbrucken.
There will just be 8 trains in each
> direction between Paris and Metz / Nancy.
viz fewer trains than nowadays.
For the smaller towns like
> Chalons sur Marne, Charelveille Mezieres, or Epinal, I prefer not to
> think about it...
2 Paris <-> Bar le Duc, calling at Châlons en Champagne and Vitry le
François
7 Paris<->Reims, with 2 of them extending (fast) to Charleville-Mézières
2 Paris<->Epinal, via Nancy, 1 extending to Remiremont.
> Worse : They wanna open stations in the fields, without connections
> with the classic lines ; and close the stations in towns like Verdun
> or Bar-le-Duc !!!
IMHO, it would have been far more sensible to opt for a more northern route,
viz serving Verduns and Metz. market potential would have been higher, as
well as passenger convenience.
it may be conjonctural but it may also be the beginning of the
> limits of the TGV model : by targeting long distance and business
> travelers, you target a small number of people. Which can't be
> extended undefinitely.
Not necessarily. There is still room for growth on those markets.
> > The only hope I have is the passenger train market opening to
> > other companies : may be that the markets segments that SNCF has
> > decided to ignore deliberately will be taken over by other companies
> > that will exploit them successfully. A ver light hope, sure, but
> > a hope anyway.
> Maybe a private company will consider transporting people from Paris
> to Lille, by the classic line, a more longer journey but less pricey.
> But I' not sure it will bring much profit...
Operating costs would be much lower than on TGV, so cheaper fares could be
offered. And with journey times ranging from 02.00 to 02.15, such offer
would be very relevant.
Best regards
Phil
Flosta
"Jeremie Feinblatt" <jf...@9online.fr> wrote in message
news:c5ecqp$55l$1...@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net...
> Hello,
>
> I must say I disagree pretty much with you. Your arguments lack an
in-depth
> approach of the current railways system in France and throughout Europe.
You've got exactly the point.
Mr "Sette_Bello" does not even attempt to have a non completely superficial
approach of the current railways system in France and throughout Europe
(what else could one expect from somebody who misspells the name of one of
the most famous italian trains as his nickname?).
For your info, he has being spreading around his "gospel" about the "so bad"
french railways strategy for several months on french railways newsgroups,
too.
His speciality: reading only statistics and numbers he likes and
disregarding the other ones.
But adding false info and mistakes here and there (that he refuses to admit,
even in front of the evidence, of course!)
Apparently he ignores (or worse, he refuses to realize) that
- the ratio of rail passangers over the Country population
- the ratio of passangers*KM over the Country population
for France is historically, steadly and way higher than in all other
countries he uses to compare the french railway system with (only Japan,
Switzerland and few other Countries rank better France...).
Not too bad for a Country that "has completely missed its railways' strategy
in the last 20-30 years" (in Mr Sette_Bello's opinion, of course)!
Regards
Flosta
Ulf Kutzner
> > It will also be with the TGV Est. NO train Paris-Strasbourg will stop
> > between these two cities.
>
> Hard to convey any cabotage traffic if calling at stations located in the
> countryside, as in Reims-Bezannes TGV, Meuse TGV and Louvigny Lorraine
> TGV...
>
> Paris-Frankfurt services will also run fast from Paris to Forbach or
> Saarbrucken.
Making trips Mainz - Nancy/Dijon awfully complicated.
I loved Corail train 254 Frankfurt - Bad Kreuznach - Metz - Paris
connecting on the same platform to a southbound Corail in Metz.
Regards, ULF
P.L.Guillemin
Ulf Kutzner <kutz...@mail.zdv.uni-mainz.de> a écrit dans le message :
407C3F88...@mail.zdv.uni-mainz.de...
> "P.L.Guillemin" schrieb:
>
> > > It will also be with the TGV Est. NO train Paris-Strasbourg will stop
> > > between these two cities.
> >
> > Hard to convey any cabotage traffic if calling at stations located in
the
> > countryside, as in Reims-Bezannes TGV, Meuse TGV and Louvigny Lorraine
> > TGV...
> >
> > Paris-Frankfurt services will also run fast from Paris to Forbach or
> > Saarbrucken.
>
>
> Making trips Mainz - Nancy/Dijon awfully complicated.
Forget it, TGV Est has been thought to cut down journy times between NE
France/Oberrhein and Paris/Ile de France, not on other segments.
> I loved Corail train 254 Frankfurt - Bad Kreuznach - Metz - Paris
> connecting on the same platform to a southbound Corail in Metz.
>
By 2007:
RE Mainz-Saarbrücken
+
RE Saarbrücken-Metz
+
TRN Metz-Dijon
Or catch a TGV/ICE in Mannheim or Ludwigshafen and run via Paris. It could
be shorter than with the above combination, especially if you have to wait
for a long time in Saarbrücken and Metz...
Best regards
Phil
Sette_Bello
>
> > I commuted between Libourne and Paris. Libourne is a middle town near
> > Bordeaux and "benefited" from the Tgv for a few years. Awful. You
> > travel on Fridays and Sundays, the train is overcrowded,
>
> And overcrowding is quite something in a 2nd-class TGV A trailer...
>
> Depends. Many can claim a discount But those paying the full fare are truly
> randsomed. And not better considered by the staff, even if they hold a
> "Grand Voyageur" Card.
> Quite simply because most of these have little experience, if any, of how
> railways can work in other countries. Many think that Britain's Railways are
> just a set of accidents, and ignore the positive aspects of Britain's
> railways, like Saver fares, rolling-stock renewal, staffing on mainline
> services, dense traffic in South London...
Yes. Even if I disagree with privatization, UK one has had some
positive aspect. But the renewal of rolling stock was carried out with
very heavy subsidies.
One billion journeys were done last year in the UK... more than in
France.
>
> Little of them are also aware that Italy was the first european country to
> open HSLs in the after-war period.
..even before the war if you consider the direttissime lines
Napoli-Rome and Bologna-Florence, in the Fascist period, were already
a kind of high-speed lines...
> Hard to convey any cabotage traffic if calling at stations located in the
> countryside, as in Reims-Bezannes TGV, Meuse TGV and Louvigny Lorraine
> TGV...
Crazy. The CEO of Sncf admitted Haute Picardie proved a mistake, but
they do exactly the same mistakes again.
The Meuse TGV station is already useful for local leaders to justify
the building of a new freeway.
>
> Paris-Frankfurt services will also run fast from Paris to Forbach or
> Saarbrucken.
They target business customers. The prices will probably skyrocket...
> For the smaller towns like
> > Chalons sur Marne, Charelveille Mezieres, or Epinal, I prefer not to
> > think about it...
>
> 2 Paris <-> Bar le Duc, calling at Châlons en Champagne and Vitry le
> François
>
> 7 Paris<->Reims, with 2 of them extending (fast) to Charleville-Mézières
>
> 2 Paris<->Epinal, via Nancy, 1 extending to Remiremont.
Not quite good frequences, indeed.
>
>
> IMHO, it would have been far more sensible to opt for a more northern route,
> viz serving Verduns and Metz. market potential would have been higher, as
> well as passenger convenience.
Yes. But the absolute priority wa Strasbourg and Germany, to take
customers from the planes.
>
> it may be conjonctural but it may also be the beginning of the
> > limits of the TGV model : by targeting long distance and business
> > travelers, you target a small number of people. Which can't be
> > extended undefinitely.
>
> Not necessarily. There is still room for growth on those markets.
I agree with you. Not necessarily, I just attempt to make an
hypothesis, that will come true or not. But as TGV aims to rely large
urban centers, and France's most populated urban center are already
linked by Tgv (Lille, Paris, Lyons and Marseilles), the growth is
behind us.
For the traffic between different countries in the EU, I'm skeptical.
Eurostar is not a great success, even if things get better since the
opening of the new lines last fall. But Eurostar links EU's largest
two cities !!! How many people wil take the trains between Paris and
Francfort, a city less populated than London ?
The passenger traffic of the Shinkansen has been in stagnation for
more than a decade now...
But let's wait and see...
>
> Operating costs would be much lower than on TGV, so cheaper fares could be
> offered. And with journey times ranging from 02.00 to 02.15, such offer
> would be very relevant.
On the Paris-Tours line, there are regional trains operating from
Paris to Tours. Although the journey on these trains lasts two to
three times as long as in the TGV, Many people travel on these
regional trains from Paris to Tours, prefering more comfortable,
practical and cheaper trains...
I just hope a private operator will rush to such market segment, given
up by Sncf. But the ideal thing would be that Sncf rebecomes a true
public utility.
>
>
> Best regards
Best regards too
sb
Sette_Bello
> Problems are politics and geographics . Since the edge of times all trafics
> were from/to Paris , first .
The famous "Legrand star" or étoile Legrand, called "star" beacause it
had the shape of a star whose center was Paris, and "Legrand" beacuse
of the name of the engineer who conceived that, in the 1830's.
The TGV scheme is a renewal of the legrand star...
Second , France is different with England ,
> Belgium , Germany ,and Netherland . In those country you find between 200
> and 300 inhabitants in a square kilometer and 100 only in France . France is
> a coountry with big cities and small villages .
Yes, I hint at that in my message, but I notice that even in France's
most populated regions 'except Ile de France) the fequences are low.
Compre Nord Pas de Calais with Belgium... yet they have the same
density of population, of about 300 inhabitant/sq. km.
Road network have been made
> efficient last 20 years , that permit good relations in all the country ,
> even in the Massif Central where train is dead . High speed between big
> cities need no stops . Small cities would get regiotrains but local
> authorities do not want to spend much money .
They can't afford it because they've more and more competences.
Train is competitive in other
> countrys because english road network is old , Germans and dutches motorways
> are overcrowed and in towns area , Italians road network is slow , due to
> mountains in a part of the country , in other place where the ground is flat
> inhabitants density is very high ( Po valley ) . In the eighties and
> nineties ( and probably later) , all the SNCF investments were concentrated
> in high speed lines and high speed rolling stock . Other rolling stock were
> paid by local authorities ( except class 26000 and 27000 ). SNCF spend money
> only if it could make benefits .
Yes, in other words it's a maket-oriented society. ITs status of
"EPIC" becomes more and more clearly an hipocrisy.
> Have a nice day.
> Bigfoot . Den Norsker Fransken togfarer
see u soon
P.L.Guillemin
> Yes. Even if I disagree with privatization, UK one has had some
> positive aspect. But the renewal of rolling stock was carried out with
> very heavy subsidies.
Not always.
> Napoli-Rome and Bologna-Florence, in the Fascist period, were already
> a kind of high-speed lines...
Agreed, but with lower speeds, although some portions are now cleared for
180kph.
> > Hard to convey any cabotage traffic if calling at stations located in
the
> > countryside, as in Reims-Bezannes TGV, Meuse TGV and Louvigny Lorraine
> > TGV...
> Crazy. The CEO of Sncf
Well, this is the one who went to jail...
admitted Haute Picardie proved a mistake, but
> they do exactly the same mistakes again.
Same with TGV Rhin-Rhône, with Parkway stations outside Belfort and
Besançon.
> The Meuse TGV station is already useful for local leaders to justify
> the building of a new freeway.
Meuse TGV Parkway was imposed in 1993-1994 by Gérard Longuet. back then, he
was:
_ Minister for Industry
_ President of the Lorraine Regional Council
_ Mayor of Revigny, a small village close to Bar-le-Duc and which used to be
served by Paris-STrasburg/Metz TRNs not so long ago...
His idea was to have a station located between Bar-le-Dud and Verduns, as a
counterpart for the withdrawal of GL services calling at Bar-le-Duc, once
TGV services would begin.
> > Paris-Frankfurt services will also run fast from Paris to Forbach or
> > Saarbrucken.
> They target business customers. The prices will probably skyrocket...
Paris-Frankfurt in 4hrs is already too long for business travellers.
> > For the smaller towns like
> > > Chalons sur Marne, Charelveille Mezieres, or Epinal, I prefer not to
> > > think about it...
> >
> > 2 Paris <-> Bar le Duc, calling at Châlons en Champagne and Vitry le
> > François
> >
> > 7 Paris<->Reims, with 2 of them extending (fast) to Charleville-Mézières
> >
> > 2 Paris<->Epinal, via Nancy, 1 extending to Remiremont.
> Not quite good frequences, indeed.
Paris-Reims deserves 1 hourly service at the very least.
Same on Paris-Metz and Paris-Nancy
The trouble is that this line was designed in such a way that more services
are needed to serve the same amount of segments.
While Paris-Frankfurt and Paris-Strasburg service nowadays serve Chalons en
Chamagne, Nancy and Metz, those segments will be segregated once LGV Est
opens up...
Pity that there isn't a chord East of Reims. Instead of calling in Bezannes,
TGVs to Lille and the West Country could call at reims Central station.
Paris-Metz or Nancy services could also have called in Reims. That would
have increased journey times by 10-15min, but does 1.40 instead of 1.25 make
a difference on Paris-Metz or Nancy?
> > IMHO, it would have been far more sensible to opt for a more northern
route,
> > viz serving Verduns and Metz. market potential would have been higher,
as
> > well as passenger convenience.
> Yes. But the absolute priority wa Strasbourg and Germany, to take
> customers from the planes.
Had the absolute priority been Strasburg and beyond, LGV Est would have been
built into one single stage, from Vaires to Vendenheim, and the
International Link from Vendenheim to some point between Achern and Baden
Baden would also have seen light.
Again, journey times on Paris Frankfurt and Stuttgart will remain too long
for business travellers.
Frequency will also be ludicrous in comparison to what AF and LH offer on
those routes
> > it may be conjonctural but it may also be the beginning of the
> > > limits of the TGV model : by targeting long distance and business
> > > travelers, you target a small number of people. Which can't be
> > > extended undefinitely.
> >
> > Not necessarily. There is still room for growth on those markets.
> I agree with you. Not necessarily, I just attempt to make an
> hypothesis, that will come true or not. But as TGV aims to rely large
> urban centers, and France's most populated urban center are already
> linked by Tgv (Lille, Paris, Lyons and Marseilles), the growth is
> behind us.
Stricter Takt would enhance overall potential of that corridor.
Fast (200-250kph) night services could also bring extra custom.
Concerning the current services, better standards, and more choice with 3 or
4 classes of accommodation instead of 2, could also stimulate demand, with a
more proactive pricing policy, particularly off-peak.
One could also run Regional high-speed services. While that has been tested
for 4 yrs in Nord Pas de Calais, such services could also run South of
Lyons. On Paris-Lyons, new signalling and extra stations are a prerequisite
for such services.
> For the traffic between different countries in the EU, I'm skeptical.
> Eurostar is not a great success, even if things get better since the
> opening of the new lines last fall. But Eurostar links EU's largest
> two cities !!! How many people wil take the trains between Paris and
> Francfort, a city less populated than London ?
2 years ago, SNCF promised 15M passengers per annum on the whole LGV Est.
Eurostar has never been able to exceed half of that amount in cross-chunnel
traffic (excluding Paris-Calais and Lille-Brussels)
> The passenger traffic of the Shinkansen has been in stagnation for
> more than a decade now...
Service standards and customer satisfaction have increased, though.
Productivity has been on the rise, which has offset traffic stagnation
> But let's wait and see...
>
> >
> > Operating costs would be much lower than on TGV, so cheaper fares could
be
> > offered. And with journey times ranging from 02.00 to 02.15, such offer
> > would be very relevant.
> On the Paris-Tours line, there are regional trains
These are actually GL trains, yet unreservable.
operating from
> Paris to Tours. Although the journey on these trains lasts two to
> three times as long as in the TGV, Many people travel on these
> regional trains from Paris to Tours, prefering more comfortable,
Aqualys is more comfy in 1st-class than TGV A, but it is very much like the
same in 2nd-class.
> practical and cheaper trains...
Aqualys attracts a substantial amount of cabotage between Tours and Orléans,
though...
But Région Centre has paid for the refurbishment of 55 Corail cars (35
Corail+ cars are also used) and has stood as a guarantor if revenue falls
below a certain threshold AFAIK.
> I just hope a private operator will rush to such market segment, given
> up by Sncf. But the ideal thing would be that Sncf rebecomes a true
> public utility.
SNCF has never been a "Service Public" in Mainline traffic. Since its birth
on 01/01/1938, it closed down half of the French standard-gauge rail
network.
The comparison SNCF Mainline services of the 1950s and those of its
predecesors in the mid-30s is not that glamourous I m afraid
Best regards
Phil
Klaus Foehl
> For the traffic between different countries in the EU, I'm skeptical.
> Eurostar is not a great success, even if things get better since the
> opening of the new lines last fall. But Eurostar links EU's largest
> two cities !!! How many people wil take the trains between Paris and
> Francfort, a city less populated than London ?
Frankfurt has rather good connecting train services. Speaking for
Brussels and London (no experience for Paris Nord), going for an
onward train connection is a much less pleasant experience there.
Thus Eurostar BFUK misses out on the hinterland catchment areas.
Anyone revisiting previous posts will find root causes mentioned as
check-in procedures, safety regulation and border control procedures,
inflexible or unaffordable ticket types. The issue of the cumbersome
crossing of London by tube is partially being addressed with the
current construction of CTRL part two and the St Pancras overhaul.
May I briefly describe my personal experience in London?
First no direct tube line from Kings Cross to Waterloo.
Arriving at the terminal with the better part of an hour to burn.
After passing through checks and controls loitering in a cramped
waiting area, insufficient seating space and no view of the trains.
Then getting onto the train and after all passengers being safely
seated with their luggage nicely stowed away waiting another
quarter of an hour before the train finally starts moving on time.
I am amazed Eurostar BFUK does have that many passengers despite
these circumstances that are not exactly close to best practice.
Best regards
Klaus
John Gough
<outgoi...@haelden.de> wrote:
>Sette_Bello <v_d...@nomade.fr> wrote:
>> For the traffic between different countries in the EU, I'm skeptical.
>> Eurostar is not a great success, even if things get better since the
>> opening of the new lines last fall. But Eurostar links EU's largest
>> two cities !!! How many people wil take the trains between Paris and
>> Francfort, a city less populated than London ?
Surely Eurostar is a very considerable success, if we forget the wild
estimates of potential traffic that were given back at the start of
the project. As Guillaume Pepy explained last autumn, there were
reasons for these high figures .... I can't immediately lay my hands
on the source, but I am pretty sure that the passenger-flow between
London and Paris is the largest flow between two cities of any of the
InterCity traffics out of London. The Brussels service has of course
not been as successful, but I really don't think it fair to say that
the Paris service is "not a great success".
>Frankfurt has rather good connecting train services. Speaking for
>Brussels and London (no experience for Paris Nord), going for an
>onward train connection is a much less pleasant experience there.
>Thus Eurostar BFUK misses out on the hinterland catchment areas.
That's the big difference. Frankfurt has excellent connecting services
running at regular intervals from the one station. And the big problem
of immigration controls is avoided because international traffic is
within Schengenland. Paris is a London-type situation, with most
connections going from other stations which are not especially easy to
get to (given that very few passengers are likely to want to make an
onward connection at the Gare du Nord). Connections with Eurostar at
Brussels are a disaster, for three main reasons in my experience: poor
timekeeping by Eurostar; a bad fit of timetables with the Thalys and
ICE services on to Cologne; and above all the very poor arrangements
for the immigration controls. So Eurostar does indeed miss out on the
hinterland catchment areas -- and in England too, given the problems
of access to Waterloo for many of us from away from London.
>Anyone revisiting previous posts will find root causes mentioned as
>check-in procedures, safety regulation and border control procedures,
>inflexible or unaffordable ticket types. The issue of the cumbersome
>crossing of London by tube is partially being addressed with the
>current construction of CTRL part two and the St Pancras overhaul.
All of that! And then St Pancras will be better for anyone from the
northern side of London, from East Anglia, the midlands, and the north
of Great Britain, and will be no worse for those from the west coming
into London Paddington.
>May I briefly describe my personal experience in London?
>
>First no direct tube line from Kings Cross to Waterloo.
Absolutely. The interchange at Oxford Circus is a good one, but the
Tube is not a system to be used with the sort of luggage one is likely
to be carrying when using Eurostar -- especially at peak times!
>Arriving at the terminal with the better part of an hour to burn.
Unpredictable -- you can need a lot of time if you hit a peak. But the
general point is valid in my opinion.
>After passing through checks and controls loitering in a cramped
>waiting area, insufficient seating space and no view of the trains.
I agree, but would just claim that the Waterloo facilities are better
than those in either Paris or Brussels. The wait to board Eurostar is
not pleasant at any of the terminals.
>Then getting onto the train and after all passengers being safely
>seated with their luggage nicely stowed away waiting another
>quarter of an hour before the train finally starts moving on time.
You clearly haven't enjoyed the experience of a large number of
passengers all with large cases turning up at Brussels at the very
last minute!
>I am amazed Eurostar BFUK does have that many passengers despite
>these circumstances that are not exactly close to best practice.
Even if it doesn't aspire to the ease of use of a real InterCity
railway service, nevertheless it is infinitely better than travelling
by scheduled airlines from a place like Heathrow.
--
John Gough
This e-mail address is rarely read
Ulf Kutzner
> Generally, the frequency (how often trains circulate on a given line)
> on the French network is very poor. If you compare to Italy, Germany
> or Belgium, it's obvious. The low density of population of France
> can't account for that, because even in very populated territories,
> there are relatively few trains in France.
>
> Take Paris-Rouen. Paris is the EU's largest metropolitan area. Rouen
> is located less than 150 km away from Paris. And there's LESS THAN one
> train per hour. Compare that with Brussels-Gent, two smaller cities,
> wherer there are 3 trains/hour.
Err, less than 30 minutes by train. Should be try Transilien services?
Regards, ULF
Ulf Kutzner
>
> Sette_Bello <v_d...@nomade.fr> a écrit dans le message :
> e44f86b0.04041...@posting.google.com...
> > Napoli-Rome and Bologna-Florence, in the Fascist period, were already
> > a kind of high-speed lines...
>
> Agreed, but with lower speeds, although some portions are now cleared for
> 180kph.
I thought 200 on Naples - Rome but I am not sure. However, there is a
new direttissima under constuction with 25 kV.
> > > Paris-Frankfurt services will also run fast from Paris to Forbach or
> > > Saarbrucken.
> > They target business customers. The prices will probably skyrocket...
>
> Paris-Frankfurt in 4hrs is already too long for business travellers.
Well, might be acceptable for some.
> While Paris-Frankfurt and Paris-Strasburg service nowadays serve Chalons en
> Chamagne,
Few trains stop in Chālons en Champagne.
> Nancy and Metz, those segments will be segregated once LGV Est
> opens up...
> Had the absolute priority been Strasburg and beyond, LGV Est would have been
> built into one single stage, from Vaires to Vendenheim, and the
> International Link from Vendenheim to some point between Achern and Baden
> Baden would also have seen light.
To have less frequewncies in Strasburg?
> Again, journey times on Paris Frankfurt and Stuttgart will remain too long
> for business travellers.
>
> Frequency will also be ludicrous in comparison to what AF and LH offer on
> those routes
Regards, ULF
Klaus Foehl
>>Anyone revisiting previous posts will find root causes mentioned as
>>check-in procedures, safety regulation and border control procedures,
>>inflexible or unaffordable ticket types. The issue of the cumbersome
>>crossing of London by tube is partially being addressed with the
>>current construction of CTRL part two and the St Pancras overhaul.
>
> All of that!
No. I disagree. You only improve on the London transit.
There is still the lack of cabotage. Even GNER accept non-border-crossing
passengers as well ;-) as did trains FRG<->GDR. Even under such less
favourable conditions the GDR immigration personnel did a much better
job in keeping unwanted passengers [out of|inside] the country than
the UK authorities of today (although I am not really proud of it).
When I saw a computer-generated "aerial view" of the future platforms
inside St Pancras I had a déją vu of my 1984 impressions when
travelling through Berlin Friedrichsstraße. I prefer a different UK.
Best regards
Klaus
P.L.Guillemin
Ulf Kutzner <kutz...@mail.zdv.uni-mainz.de> a écrit dans le message :
407D614D...@mail.zdv.uni-mainz.de...
> "P.L.Guillemin" schrieb:
> >
> > Sette_Bello <v_d...@nomade.fr> a écrit dans le message :
> > e44f86b0.04041...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Paris-Frankfurt services will also run fast from Paris to Forbach or
> > > > Saarbrucken.
> > > They target business customers. The prices will probably skyrocket...
> >
> > Paris-Frankfurt in 4hrs is already too long for business travellers.
>
> Well, might be acceptable for some.
Agreed, but that excludes those making a day return...
> > While Paris-Frankfurt and Paris-Strasburg service nowadays serve Chalons
en
> > Chamagne,
>
> Few trains stop in Chālons en Champagne.
Let me see:
Paris-Strasburg: 3
+ 2 Paris-Nancy, one of which connecting with a fast TRN To Strasburg.
Paris-Metz: 4
What will be left post-2007?
> > Had the absolute priority been Strasburg and beyond, LGV Est would have
been
> > built into one single stage, from Vaires to Vendenheim, and the
> > International Link from Vendenheim to some point between Achern and
Baden
> > Baden would also have seen light.
>
>
> To have less frequencies in Strasburg?
Not necessarily.
Running at 350kph from Vaires to Baden Baden, one could reach Frankfurt in
just 3hrs and Stuttgart in 02.40
Market potential on Paris-Frankfurt/Stuttgart would be higher, so there
would be no need to run via Strasburg. There could be a hourly service
Paris-Frankfurt/Stuttgart, with both sets running together on
Paris-Karlsruhe.
Once the Stuttgart-Mannheim-NBS has seen light and once the Karlsruhe-Baden
Baden NBS has reached completion, further time savings could be possible.
Paris-Strasburg has enough potential to be run independently from
Paris-Stuttgart, especially with journey times cut down to 01.45 (at 320kph)
or 1.40 (at 350kph). After all, TGV R sets only have 377 seats, and if the
pitch in 2nd class is upgraded to TGV PSE Mk2 Refurbs, 16 seats will be
gone.
Best regards
Phil
Egocrata
> Even fewer of them are aware of what's going on South of the Pyrenees,
where
> leading trends in tomorrow's railway are taking shape.
>
If you hear the average noise and complaining levels on es.rec.trenes or
tranvia.org, you'll think the opposite. I don't know exactly what those
"leading trends" are, apart from the megalomaniacal rate of HSL construction
of late. The only thing I find "new" is the idea of creating 250 Km/h
regional services, and the very nice conmuter rail networks on big cities.
But on a conceptual level, I find the whole thing quite SNCF or DB-like.
Ulf Kutzner
> Market potential on Paris-Frankfurt/Stuttgart would be higher, so there
> would be no need to run via Strasburg. There could be a hourly service
> Paris-Frankfurt/Stuttgart, with both sets running together on
> Paris-Karlsruhe.
>
> Once the Stuttgart-Mannheim-NBS has seen light
Errr, opened years ago.
> and once the Karlsruhe-Baden
> Baden NBS
There are two existing lines Karlsruhe - Baden Baden. Don't know of a
third one.
> has reached completion, further time savings could be possible.
Big problem in Rastatt.
Regards, ULF
P.L.Guillemin
> "P.L.Guillemin" schrieb:
>
> > Market potential on Paris-Frankfurt/Stuttgart would be higher, so there
> > would be no need to run via Strasburg. There could be a hourly service
> > Paris-Frankfurt/Stuttgart, with both sets running together on
> > Paris-Karlsruhe.
> >
> > Once the Stuttgart-Mannheim-NBS has seen light
>
> Errr, opened years ago.
Ooops, was meaning the forthcoming Frankfurt-Stuttgart HSL, presumably
routed via Mannheim.
> > and once the Karlsruhe-Baden
> > Baden NBS
>
> There are two existing lines Karlsruhe - Baden Baden. Don't know of a
> third one.
Bundesverkehrsplan still contemplates a NBS on Karlsruhe-Baden Baden, with a
Tunnel on Karlsruhe-Rastatt.
> > has reached completion, further time savings could be possible.
>
> Big problem in Rastatt.
Agreed.
OTOH, heavy investments on Graben Neudorf or Bruchsal-Rastatt would have a
far better return than on Saarbrücken-Mannheim.
Best regards
Phil
P.L.Guillemin
Egocrata <egoc...@terra.es> a écrit dans le message :
rWffc.4859$_L6....@twister.auna.com...
> >
> > Even fewer of them are aware of what's going on South of the Pyrenees,
> where
> > leading trends in tomorrow's railway are taking shape.
> >
>
> If you hear the average noise and complaining levels on es.rec.trenes or
> tranvia.org, you'll think the opposite.
ERT is not really representative of the real world I m afraid. Same remark
about FMTR in France.
Many on ERT still miss the Shanghai and its desperately long journey times
(2 nights +1 day in the early-60s or so...) I m not sure that typical rail
passengers would share those views. Mind you, I m pretty sure that all those
that rant at Talgo III cars ousting Class 9000/10000/16000 cars will
eventually moan and regret Talgo III cars no later than 1-2 yrs following
their withdrawal.
After all, some have already said that they would like Talgo III RD stock to
remain in use instead of Talgo 7 as long as possible...
Many complain about everything (Eg.. the Talgo III running on Madrid-Irun
uninterruptedly since 1964, with average sppeds lower than 10 yrs ago, and
slower than coach services) as well as the opposite (Eg, a continuous HSL on
Madrid-Irun as early as 2008, with knock-down journey times...)
In view of that, I would consider in a very cautious way the accuracy of the
general ERT mood...
I don't know exactly what those
> "leading trends" are, apart from the megalomaniacal rate of HSL
construction
> of late.
That's one leading trend, something that will propell RENFE on top of the
league tables for Mainline traffic, with generous specifications
Combine that with segregation of Mainline traffic from the rest, including
in Central stations
Also add HSLs serving city centres, something that would be very much
appreciated in France, with nicely-remodelled stations.
The only thing I find "new" is the idea of creating 250 Km/h
> regional services,
Add also quality night services, which are also to use HSLs, at least in
part.
> and the very nice conmuter rail networks on big cities.
Something almost nonexistent in large cities like Lyons, Lille or
Marseilles.
> But on a conceptual level, I find the whole thing quite SNCF or DB-like.
RENFE-AVE and GL have developped quality daytime products, which are well
above what you can have in France.
Same with RENFE-Regionales, with its Express and TRD brands.
DB remains unbeatable for its Taktfahrplan and for the its cross platform
guaranteed connections, but eventually, RENFE will hopefully reach
comparable standards.
Best regards
Phil
Andrew Price
<outgoi...@haelden.de> wrote:
[---]
>There is still the lack of cabotage. Even GNER accept non-border-crossing
>passengers as well ;-) as did trains FRG<->GDR. Even under such less
>favourable conditions the GDR immigration personnel did a much better
>job in keeping unwanted passengers [out of|inside] the country than
>the UK authorities of today (although I am not really proud of it).
They certainly did - although I'm sure that John knows that, too.
From memory, he lived some time there (Leipzig?).
Ross
<c5jhr3$k4i$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, seen in misc.transport.rail.europe:
[...]
>Frankfurt has rather good connecting train services. Speaking for
>Brussels and London (no experience for Paris Nord)
[snip]
>Arriving at the terminal with the better part of an hour to burn.
>After passing through checks and controls loitering in a cramped
>waiting area, insufficient seating space and no view of the trains.
If you thought London's E* terminal was bad, I strongly advise you
_not_ to use the Paris terminal at Gare du Nord.
Far smaller than the Waterloo waiting area, far fewer seats and far
less to do to pass the time.
I was _not_ impressed with the Gare du Nord terminal.
--
Ross Hamilton, in Lincoln (UK)
From address *will* bounce
NC
>> Depends. Many can claim a discount But those paying the full fare
>> are truly randsomed. And not better considered by the staff, even if
>> they hold a "Grand Voyageur" Card.
>
>> Quite simply because most of these have little experience, if any,
>> of how railways can work in other countries. Many think that
>> Britain's Railways are just a set of accidents, and ignore the
>> positive aspects of Britain's railways, like Saver fares,
>> rolling-stock renewal, staffing on mainline services, dense traffic
>> in South London...
Err... probably a case of "greener grass on other side of fence"...
My limited experience of TGV in France has been positive. eg. turned up at
Lyon, wanting seats next day (Saturday) to Paris. No problem, and about
UK£25.
In contrast, if I try to book a ticket from my home to Manchester (shorter
distance, longer journey time), the turn-up and book fair is nearly £90.
In theory I can get discounts. But... Saver Tickets not valid on lots of
trains, meaning that the journey is nearly impossible with a Saver.
So one could use "Apex" or specific company discounts tied to a specific
seat on a specific train. But these suffer if the connecting train is late;
the receiving train refuses to honour the ticket due to the delay (different
train company!), and charges the full fare on top of the Apex already paid.
Yes, this has happened to my wife ! As a consequence, she now drives a hire
car to Manchester instead. Much more reliable cost and more reliable journey
time, not so good for the planet.
In contrast, I was caught up in France during the strikes last summer. There
was no problem transferring pre-booked tickets to the next available train
when delayed.
> Yes. Even if I disagree with privatization, UK one has had some
> positive aspect. But the renewal of rolling stock was carried out with
> very heavy subsidies.
Not to mention the stupendeous amounts spent on the West Coast main line
(London - Manchester) renewals, which might drag it up to 1990's standards.
Some calculations suggest the UK could have had a new TGV London-Manchester
line for less....
regards,
NC.
--
NC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.
P.L.Guillemin
NC <m...@privacy.net> a écrit dans le message :
c5kavp$2inss$1...@ID-100732.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Sette_Bello wrote:
> >> Depends. Many can claim a discount But those paying the full fare
> >> are truly randsomed. And not better considered by the staff, even if
> >> they hold a "Grand Voyageur" Card.
> >
> >> Quite simply because most of these have little experience, if any,
> >> of how railways can work in other countries. Many think that
> >> Britain's Railways are just a set of accidents, and ignore the
> >> positive aspects of Britain's railways, like Saver fares,
> >> rolling-stock renewal, staffing on mainline services, dense traffic
> >> in South London...
>
> Err... probably a case of "greener grass on other side of fence"...
>
> My limited experience of TGV in France has been positive. eg. turned up at
> Lyon, wanting seats next day (Saturday) to Paris. No problem, and about
The full fare (off-peak) in 2nd class is at EUR 54.20 (68.90 at peaks) Which
fare did you use?
> In contrast, if I try to book a ticket from my home to Manchester (shorter
> distance, longer journey time), the turn-up and book fair is nearly Ł90.
I know, but it' s as though you tried to compare prices for a Maisonette in
France and in Britain...
> In theory I can get discounts. But... Saver Tickets not valid on lots of
> trains,
Agreed, but quotas for quota-controlled fares are very low at peaks in
France.
meaning that the journey is nearly impossible with a Saver.
Well, I have made day returns between London and cities like Bristol,
Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, using Savers.
> So one could use "Apex" or specific company discounts tied to a specific
> seat on a specific train. But these suffer if the connecting train is
late;
> the receiving train refuses to honour the ticket due to the delay
(different
> train company!), and charges the full fare on top of the Apex already
paid.
> Yes, this has happened to my wife !
Friends of mine have had similar problems in France. They were using Prem's
Value fares or last minute offers. But they first had to take a TER or
Transilien service, which was delayed, so much so that they missed the GL
service where they had booked those neither refundable bor exchangable
tickets. And they were denied with using the next GL service, even if all
that had been induced by SNCF itself...
> > Yes. Even if I disagree with privatization, UK one has had some
> > positive aspect. But the renewal of rolling stock was carried out with
> > very heavy subsidies.
>
> Not to mention the stupendeous amounts spent on the West Coast main line
> (London - Manchester) renewals, which might drag it up to 1990's
standards.
> Some calculations suggest the UK could have had a new TGV
London-Manchester
> line for less....
Agreed, but the WCRM goes well beyond the scope of privatisation.
The fiasco began with the APT, actually, in good old BR days,
pre-sectorisation...
Best regards
Phil
Egocrata
Greener grass in the other side of the fence in ERT, indeed :-). Thanks for
your great post. I am the resident ERT pro-HSL guy, most of the time, so I
can only agree with your views. In any case, as far as I see, Spain is
trying to move the network outside the 1950s, in most cases.
Underinvestiment here has been fierce, so anything we do looks like a
revolution. Now, let's hope that the new -gov keeps pouring money at the
same amazing rate in new lines, and corrects the obssesive centralism of the
previous one...
"P.L.Guillemin" <plgui...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:c5k62m$7l7$1...@news-reader3.wanadoo.fr...
Ulf Kutzner
>
> Ulf Kutzner <kutz...@mail.zdv.uni-mainz.de> a écrit dans le message :
> 407D8FDD...@mail.zdv.uni-mainz.de...
> > "P.L.Guillemin" schrieb:
> >
> > > Market potential on Paris-Frankfurt/Stuttgart would be higher, so there
> > > would be no need to run via Strasburg. There could be a hourly service
> > > Paris-Frankfurt/Stuttgart, with both sets running together on
> > > Paris-Karlsruhe.
> > >
> > > Once the Stuttgart-Mannheim-NBS has seen light
> >
> > Errr, opened years ago.
>
> Ooops, was meaning the forthcoming Frankfurt-Stuttgart
Should connect to Mannheim - Stuttgart not too far from Mannheim.
> HSL,
No money for that during the next years.
> presumably
> routed via Mannheim.
Big question.
Regards, ULF
Ulf Kutzner
>
> Egocrata <egoc...@terra.es> a écrit dans le message :
> rWffc.4859$_L6....@twister.auna.com...
> > >
> > > Even fewer of them are aware of what's going on South of the Pyrenees,
> > where
> > > leading trends in tomorrow's railway are taking shape.
> > >
> >
> > If you hear the average noise and complaining levels on es.rec.trenes or
> > tranvia.org, you'll think the opposite.
>
> ERT is not really representative of the real world I m afraid. Same remark
> about FMTR in France.
>
> Many on ERT still miss the Shanghai
??
> and its desperately long journey times
> (2 nights +1 day in the early-60s or so...) I m not sure that typical rail
> passengers would share those views. Mind you, I m pretty sure that all those
> that rant at Talgo III cars ousting Class 9000/10000/16000 cars will
> eventually moan and regret Talgo III cars no later than 1-2 yrs following
> their withdrawal.
> DB remains unbeatable for its Taktfahrplan and for the its cross platform
> guaranteed connections
Errr, many prefer the Swiss accuracy.
Regards, ULF
Sette_Bello
of
the most famous italian trains as his nickname?).
Anyway you're free to choose your nickname, nicknames are not supposed
to obey to spelling rules.
U have the right to disagree with me, but the trouble is u get at me
more than at my arguments. It's sad to find that you've learned
nothing from our precedent clashes, I thought you would get cooler.
But it's in keeping with what I told you a few weeks ago, that you
seem an anal character, stubborn, agressive, uninteresting.
Let's go back to the point. U don't deny the classic trains have been
neglected whereas most passengers take them. U don't deny territories
in France are less deserved than before the all-TGV era. U don't deny
many Intercity relations in France are awfully out of age. U don't
deny frequencies in France are often bad.
And don't forget I don't object to TGV itself ; just consider what I
say :
"That enables the railways of this country to be very competitive for
long-distance journeys"
or
"you can leave Paris and arrive in Lille one hour later and that's
ok".
For somebody anti-TGV, these are somewhat strange quotations !!!
I object to the out-and-tout priority which TGV benefited from.
The only argument u give is the ratio of passenger and vk over the
population. But that's just a figure, a figure in itself does not
prove anything. U seem to consider it very decisive arguments.
U know, statistics is the scientific form of lie. Germany is on
average more densely populated than France, but some places in Germany
are true deserts and some places in France are overcrowded. These
average figures can hide the reality rather than explaining it. Except
for mean minds like you. Moreover u reproach me with giving statistics
in agreement with my view points but you do it more than me.
Let's see your "statistics", (I use the term without laughing) :
>
> - the ratio of rail passangers over the Country population
U reproach me with misspelling sette bello, but you misspell
passengers. No matter.
Maybe, but TGV has little to do with that : less than 10% of France's
rail passengers do travel on a TGV. Most travel in regional services,
mostly Ile de France (600 millons passengers out of 900 millions for
Sncf traffic as a whole).
If you don't count IDF, you have 315 millions travelers for less than
50 millions inhabitants. That's not a very good score, even with TGV
passengers included !!!
> - the ratio of passangers*KM over the Country population
That's truer, but it doesn't contradict what I say : "The rise of the
TGV has favored long-distance travelers, (...) and neglected short and
middle-distance journeys"
If you favorize long-distance travelers, u have good results in vk,
since these travelers, by nature, do many kilometers. Hence, the good
results of France in vk which don't thwart my viewpoint but oks it, on
the contrary.
Thank you very much for okaying my viewpoint.
>
> Not too bad for a Country that "has completely missed its railways' strategy
> in the last 20-30 years" (in Mr Sette_Bello's opinion, of course)!
You aren't honest, because u use brackets (as if you quoted me)
whereas I didn't write that at all. I didn't express such an opinion.
I just express dissatisfaction. I have that right, as a citizen,
without being lambasted by a mascalzone like you.
P.L.Guillemin
Ulf Kutzner <kutz...@mail.zdv.uni-mainz.de> a écrit dans le message :
407E54E0...@mail.zdv.uni-mainz.de...
> "P.L.Guillemin" schrieb:
> >
> > Egocrata <egoc...@terra.es> a écrit dans le message :
> > rWffc.4859$_L6....@twister.auna.com...
> > > >
> > > > Even fewer of them are aware of what's going on South of the
Pyrenees,
> > > where
> > > > leading trends in tomorrow's railway are taking shape.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you hear the average noise and complaining levels on es.rec.trenes
or
> > > tranvia.org, you'll think the opposite.
> >
> > ERT is not really representative of the real world I m afraid. Same
remark
> > about FMTR in France.
> >
> > Many on ERT still miss the Shanghai
>
> ??
The "Shanghai" is nowadays Estrella "Galicia" (Barcelona-Vigo/A Coruna).
This Expreso was launched in the late-40s. Very slow, and very heavy,
conveying all kinds of accommodation, including mail and parcels...
In the late-50s, that service used to leave its originating stations at
22.00, and would terminate at 07.00, on Day 3.
All in all, some 33hrs just to run on 1300km, usual (big) delays excluded...
It took a whole night to run between Barcelona and Zaragoza, while Talgo II
only took 4hrs something.
In the early-80s, just before the upgrade from 100 to 120 kph for Expreso
trains (Summer 1983 IIRC), the journey still took some 24 hrs...
The "Shanghai" nickname derives from the very slow pace of that train. From
Vigo or A Coruna, Barcelona looked as remote as Shanghai...
Once RENFE gets its newly-ordered 10 night Talgo sets, it is understood that
this route will benefit from a Trenhotel, as it did in 1995-98, with the
"Rosalia del Castro". Using the HSL on Barcelona-Zaragoza, journey times
could be cut down to 12hrs something instead of 16.
> > and its desperately long journey times
> > (2 nights +1 day in the early-60s or so...) I m not sure that typical
rail
> > passengers would share those views. Mind you, I m pretty sure that all
those
> > that rant at Talgo III cars ousting Class 9000/10000/16000 cars will
> > eventually moan and regret Talgo III cars no later than 1-2 yrs
following
> > their withdrawal.
>
>
> > DB remains unbeatable for its Taktfahrplan and for the its cross
platform
> > guaranteed connections
>
> Errr, many prefer the Swiss accuracy.
DB 's performance is more impressive, given the size of its territory.
Best regards
Phil
Flosta
"Sette_Bello" <v_d...@nomade.fr> wrote in message
news:e44f86b0.04041...@posting.google.com...
...
> U have the right to disagree with me, but the trouble is u get at me
> more than at my arguments. It's sad to find that you've learned
> nothing from our precedent clashes, I thought you would get cooler.
> But it's in keeping with what I told you a few weeks ago, that you
> seem an anal character, stubborn, agressive, uninteresting.
.....
> > Not too bad for a Country that "has completely missed its railways'
strategy
> > in the last 20-30 years" (in Mr Sette_Bello's opinion, of course)!
> You aren't honest, because u use brackets (as if you quoted me)
> whereas I didn't write that at all. I didn't express such an opinion.
> I just express dissatisfaction. I have that right, as a citizen,
> without being lambasted by a mascalzone like you.
Wow!
I see that your insults are very reasoned and motivated! ;-)
And you are very good at getting at arguments, not at people! ;-)))
Regarding
> > Not too bad for a Country that "has completely missed its railways'
strategy
> > in the last 20-30 years" (in Mr Sette_Bello's opinion, of course)!
> You aren't honest...
I quoted "has completely missed its railways' strategy in the last 20-30
years", because it resumes the sense of your post(s), which was the subject
of the comments.
Regards
Flosta
Sette_Bello
> tranvia.org, you'll think the opposite. I don't know exactly what those
> "leading trends" are, apart from the megalomaniacal rate of HSL construction
> of late. The only thing I find "new" is the idea of creating 250 Km/h
> regional services, and the very nice conmuter rail networks on big cities.
> But on a conceptual level, I find the whole thing quite SNCF or DB-like.
Hello,
I'm not familiar at all with Spanish railroad but as far as I can see
I have the feeling that renfe has followed the policy of Sncf :
priority to high-speed line at the expense of regional services.
For instance, from Renfe website, I have seen that Madrid-Sevilla
relations were ok. A little difference with Sncf : there are non-Tgv
trains going from Madrid to Sevilla - there is practically no Corail
trains between Paris and Lille, Lyons and Marseilles.
And Renfe has invested in new non-TGV trains (Pendolinos, if I don't
mistake). Sncf has always refused to do that.
I watched once the Toledo-Madrid timetables, they seemed very bad to
me. I deduced that short- & middle-distance services were quite
neglected by Renfe...
But this is to be confirmed because I just deduce that from the
website.
Can you confirm me that it's compulsory to book a seat even on non-TGV
intercity trains in Spain ?
Best regards,
sb
Sette_Bello
> > Take Paris-Rouen. Paris is the EU's largest metropolitan area. Rouen
> > is located less than 150 km away from Paris. And there's LESS THAN one
> > train per hour. Compare that with Brussels-Gent, two smaller cities,
> > wherer there are 3 trains/hour.
>
> Err, less than 30 minutes by train. Should be try Transilien services?
It's better than I thought...
Err : I wrote "Ghent" in Dutch language...
Regards
sb
Ulf Kutzner
> Can you confirm me that it's compulsory to book a seat even on non-TGV
> intercity trains in Spain ?
I confirm.
Regards, ULF
tobias b koehler
> If you hear the average noise and complaining levels on es.rec.trenes or
> tranvia.org, you'll think the opposite. I don't know exactly what those
> "leading trends" are, apart from the megalomaniacal rate of HSL construction
> of late. The only thing I find "new" is the idea of creating 250 Km/h
> regional services, and the very nice conmuter rail networks on big cities.
> But on a conceptual level, I find the whole thing quite SNCF or DB-like.
The Spanish network still seems rather centralized and not
covering the rural areas well .... Outside the big mainlines,
you will find only a few trains per day, and the fares are
complicated enough with different price for each train type.
Try going around the country on coast lines and you will see
what I mean .... if you go from or to Madrid or on the east
coast, the service is rather good, but elsewhere ....?
--
tobias benjamin köhler ____________________________ t...@uncia.de
_________ ______________ ______________ ______________ __>_____
========H|H============H|H============H|H============H|=H=====`)
------oo-^-oo--------oo-^-oo--------oo-^-oo--------oo-^o-o--o-o=
Egocrata
Madrid- Toledo right now is the worst served regional line of the country,
by far. It is not all Renfe's fault, however; the line is not entirely
operative as they are upgrading it to be served by high-speed regional
trains, on 250 Km/h services. This will cut in half the past timetables,
from a decent 70 minutes to a rather impressive 35. The line is due to open
late this year. This is one of the new services that the HSL are supposed to
offer, and I think is a great idea, if the prices are affordable. Renfe
intends to create a long range conmuter traffic, and if the price is right,
the market potential is huge.
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm not familiar at all with Spanish railroad but as far as I can see
> I have the feeling that renfe has followed the policy of Sncf :
> priority to high-speed line at the expense of regional services.
>
> For instance, from Renfe website, I have seen that Madrid-Sevilla
> relations were ok. A little difference with Sncf : there are non-Tgv
> trains going from Madrid to Sevilla - there is practically no Corail
> trains between Paris and Lille, Lyons and Marseilles.
>
> And Renfe has invested in new non-TGV trains (Pendolinos, if I don't
> mistake). Sncf has always refused to do that.
>
> I watched once the Toledo-Madrid timetables, they seemed very bad to
> me. I deduced that short- & middle-distance services were quite
> neglected by Renfe...
>
> But this is to be confirmed because I just deduce that from the
> website.
>
> Can you confirm me that it's compulsory to book a seat even on non-TGV
> intercity trains in Spain ?
>
> Best regards,
>
> sb
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 31/03/2004
P.L.Guillemin
>
> Madrid- Toledo right now is the worst served regional line of the country,
> by far. It is not all Renfe's fault, however; the line is not entirely
> operative as they are upgrading it to be served by high-speed regional
> trains, on 250 Km/h services. This will cut in half the past timetables,
> from a decent 70 minutes to a rather impressive 35.
Err, 25min only, with AVE-104s.
The line is due to open
> late this year.
I have heard of this summer, if they don't find another bomb in La Sagra :-(
This is one of the new services that the HSL are supposed to
> offer, and I think is a great idea, if the prices are affordable. Renfe
> intends to create a long range conmuter traffic, and if the price is
right,
> the market potential is huge.
Iris services will be 50% cheaper than AVE Larga Distancia, with more fare
opportunities (Season tickets and alike)
Best regards
Phil
Egocrata
I agree with your point of view. Yes, the network is too centralized, and
the HSL map only confirms this tendency. The right has a traditional
obssesion with creating a radial network, and it shows. Some decissions are
borderline stupid, really. Andalucia internal connections are awful, and the
projected HSL plans left most cities better communicated with Madrid than
with Seville, the regional capital. Logroño is closer to Barcelona or Madrid
(400 Km) than to Bilbao (150 Km), as is Pamplona. Barcelona and Valencia
(the 2nd and 3rd cities) have no direct pure HSL link (just limited upgrade
to the old line), and so on. THe new .gov has promised to correct this;
we'll see.
About bad service on rural areas... well, the population density of Spain is
about 80 hab/Km2, so it is difficult to offer good coverage. Quite simply,
there are plenty of places in this country with not enought population to
generate decent traffics, no matter what you do. Line closures in the 80s
were savage, but they were done for good reasons. The city-to-city lines, in
most cases, are the only viable routes if Renfe has to operate them without
subsidies. So far, it is working.
This is one of the reasons, BTW, that are driving Renfe to create some sort
of high speed long range conmuter trains, using the HSL for 250 Km/h
regional traffic. Working in Madrid and living in Toledo, Segovia or
Guadalajara will be possible soon. Segovia right now is 2h from Madrid by
train; the new HSL line (due to open in 2005 or 2006, IIRC) should cut that
to 40 minutes. The market potential is huge.
>
> The Spanish network still seems rather centralized and not
> covering the rural areas well .... Outside the big mainlines,
> you will find only a few trains per day, and the fares are
> complicated enough with different price for each train type.
>
> Try going around the country on coast lines and you will see
> what I mean .... if you go from or to Madrid or on the east
> coast, the service is rather good, but elsewhere ....?
>
> --
> tobias benjamin köhler ____________________________ t...@uncia.de
> _________ ______________ ______________ ______________ __>_____
> ========H|H============H|H============H|H============H|=H=====`)
> ------oo-^-oo--------oo-^-oo--------oo-^-oo--------oo-^o-o--o-o=
Egocrata
25 minutes, right. Even better :-).
If the service turns out to be as good as it seems, the problem, in fact,
will be in Atocha station. Kinda funny, actually. When they re-opened it for
the 1992 AVE line to Seville, most commentators said that it was an
oversized monster for a single line. Now is feared that with new lines
opening left and right it will be too small by the time the HSL to Barcelona
is completed. So the station will become the bottleneck, not the lines as it
is now.
"P.L.Guillemin" <plgui...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:c5m03f$n8g$1...@news-reader4.wanadoo.fr...
P.L.Guillemin
Sette_Bello <v_d...@nomade.fr> a écrit dans le message :
e44f86b0.04041...@posting.google.com...
> U have the right to disagree with me, but the trouble is u get at me
> more than at my arguments. It's sad to find that you've learned
> nothing from our precedent clashes, I thought you would get cooler.
> But it's in keeping with what I told you a few weeks ago, that you
> seem an anal character, stubborn, agressive, uninteresting.
I have that right, as a citizen,
> without being lambasted by a mascalzone like you.
Please try to use a friendlier, more respectful tone on this NG, and refrain
from personal attacks. MTRE remains a peaceful island where one can debate
at will without bullying, unlike what one can experience on more national
railway-related usenet NGs. It would be a real shame if the civil-war
atmosphere of FMTR would contaminate this NG.
Best regards
Phil
P.L.Guillemin
>
> Greener grass in the other side of the fence in ERT, indeed :-). Thanks
for
> your great post. I am the resident ERT pro-HSL guy, most of the time, so
I
> can only agree with your views. In any case, as far as I see, Spain is
> trying to move the network outside the 1950s, in most cases.
There was some appreciable modernisation in the 60s, 70s and 80s, though.
But while railway was improving at the speed of a Rapido/Diurno, air and
coach services were improving at the speed of an AVE-102 meanwhile...
> Underinvestiment here has been fierce, so anything we do looks like a
> revolution. Now, let's hope that the new -gov keeps pouring money at the
> same amazing rate in new lines,
I don't see any reason why the PIT should be dropped:
_ the money is there
_ works have started all over the place, or if they have not, studies are
now well advanced
_ Those who initiated the AVE-trend in the late-80s are those now back to
power. Interestingly, those who increased the AVE-pace in the
late-90s/early00s are those who were against HSLs in the early-90s and
advocated rebuilt conventional lines, instead...
_ the Madrid-Lerida/Huesca HSL is already an undisputed success...
and corrects the obssesive centralism of the
> previous one...
Well, they plan to add a HSL between Pamplona and Vitoria, and have plans
the Ruta de la Plata, on Leon-Sevilla...
Those in power at the Junta de Andalucia also plans a HSL from Jaén to
Almeria, via Granada.
And Plan Galicia will also fill in obvious gaps...
Best regards
Phil
P.L.Guillemin
Sette_Bello <v_d...@nomade.fr> a écrit dans le message :
e44f86b0.04041...@posting.google.com...
> For instance, from Renfe website, I have seen that Madrid-Sevilla
> relations were ok. A little difference with Sncf : there are non-Tgv
> trains going from Madrid to Sevilla
Only 2 of them, cheaper than 15% than AVE.
> And Renfe has invested in new non-TGV trains (Pendolinos, if I don't
> mistake).
These are a fiasco, overall, with a very limited future...
> I deduced that short- & middle-distance services were quite
> neglected by Renfe...
Fast quality regional services have seen light in the past 12 years.
Best regards
Phil
P.L.Guillemin
tobias b koehler <t...@uncia.de> a écrit dans le message :
o_ufc.448616$Or1.2...@news.chello.at...
> Egocrata wrote:
>
> > If you hear the average noise and complaining levels on es.rec.trenes or
> > tranvia.org, you'll think the opposite. I don't know exactly what those
> > "leading trends" are, apart from the megalomaniacal rate of HSL
construction
> > of late. The only thing I find "new" is the idea of creating 250 Km/h
> > regional services, and the very nice conmuter rail networks on big
cities.
> > But on a conceptual level, I find the whole thing quite SNCF or DB-like.
>
> The Spanish network still seems rather centralized
True to some extend, but there are still quite many cross-country services
avoiding Madrid, in spite of closures that took place on 01/01/85.
and not
> covering the rural areas well ....
Rural areas are often vacant. In Castilla, the distance between neighbouring
villages often exceeds 25km...
Outside the big mainlines,
> you will find only a few trains per day,
True, but that is transitional. 25yrs ago, some lines used to have a little
more Mainline services, but with not so good rolling-stock, like 440s in
original condition on Madrid-Gijon Mainline services...
Everytime modernisation gains momentum, frequency is increased.
Madrid-Sevilla used to be served by 3 daytime services. Now there are 21-22
of them.
and the fares are
> complicated enough with different price for each train type.
True, but on many routes, there is only 1 class of daytime services.
> Try going around the country on coast lines and you will see
> what I mean ....
ET/FEVE from Hendaye to El Ferrol operates a more simple service pattern,
with no compulsory booking :-)
if you go from or to Madrid or on the east
> coast, the service is rather good, but elsewhere ....?
Services between Madrid and the Atlantic coast are unfrequent and slow,
although 160kph is allowed within the Avila-Vitoria-Leon Triangle.The prime
reason is the mountain range along the North Coast, which unduly penalises
journey times. On Madrid-Gijon, one has to go through the Pajares pass
(between Leon and Oviedo), with a ill-designed route, so much so that it
takes one hour just to run on 8km in a bee-line... Even worse than the
Gottard Line in the vicinity of Wassen...
The Miranda de Ebro-Bilbao line is hardly any better, and average speeds on
that route are under than 60kph. In view of that, the only way to cut
journey times is to build HSLs.
On Leon-Gijon, that will require a 30-km tunnel under Pajares Pass, whose
construction started last Autumn and will last 4-5 years.
Best regards
Phil
P.L.Guillemin
Egocrata <egoc...@terra.es> a écrit dans le message :
c5m0c6$j6e$1...@nsnmpen3-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net...
Line closures in the 80s
> were savage,
Some of those closed lines may and even will reopen in this decade, at least
partly. Trackbed has been preserved on most of them.
> This is one of the reasons, BTW, that are driving Renfe to create some
sort
> of high speed long range conmuter trains, using the HSL for 250 Km/h
> regional traffic. Working in Madrid and living in Toledo, Segovia or
> Guadalajara will be possible soon. Segovia right now is 2h from Madrid by
> train; the new HSL line (due to open in 2005 or 2006, IIRC) should cut
that
> to 40 minutes. The market potential is huge.
The first corridors served with "Iris" services will be:
Guadalajara-Madrid-Toledo
Huesca-Zaragoza-Calatayud
Cordoba-Sevilla
Commencing this year, and no later than next year
These routes will be served by the 20 AVE-104s under delivery.
Fast regional conventional stock used on those routes (470s, 432s, 440s,
592-200s, 594s) at the moment will partly be displaced to other routes
Best regards
Phil
P.L.Guillemin
> If the service turns out to be as good as it seems, the problem, in fact,
> will be in Atocha station. Kinda funny, actually. When they re-opened it
for
> the 1992 AVE line to Seville, most commentators said that it was an
> oversized monster for a single line.
Madrid-Valencia was already benefitting from a 2-hourly Takt at that time...
Now is feared that with new lines
> opening left and right it will be too small by the time the HSL to
Barcelona
> is completed. So the station will become the bottleneck, not the lines as
it
> is now.
By 2006-2007, there will be a new dual-tracked tunnel, dedicated to
standard-gauge services. This will doubtless relieve terminal tracks of
Puerta de Atocha.
Best regards
Phil
P.L.Guillemin
> If the service turns out to be as good as it seems, the problem, in fact,
> will be in Atocha station. Kinda funny, actually. When they re-opened it
for
> the 1992 AVE line to Seville, most commentators said that it was an
> oversized monster for a single line.
Madrid-Valencia was already benefitting from a 2-hourly Takt at that time...
Now is feared that with new lines
> opening left and right it will be too small by the time the HSL to
Barcelona
> is completed. So the station will become the bottleneck, not the lines as
it
> is now.
By 2006-2007, there will be a new dual-tracked tunnel, dedicated to
Tony Day
"Ross" <junk...@aslef-lincoln.org.uk> wrote in message
news:36ar70ppcu2ebu6mi...@4ax.com...
Agree - Brussels is pretty dire too, but at least it has (by far) the best
beer of the three!
Tony
Ulf Kutzner
> Services between Madrid and the Atlantic coast are unfrequent and slow,
> although 160kph is allowed within the Avila-Vitoria-Leon Triangle.The prime
> reason is the mountain range along the North Coast, which unduly penalises
> journey times. On Madrid-Gijon, one has to go through the Pajares pass
> (between Leon and Oviedo), with a ill-designed route, so much so that it
> takes one hour just to run on 8km in a bee-line... Even worse than the
> Gottard Line in the vicinity of Wassen...
Why ill-designed? What is your design and cost for that?
> The Miranda de Ebro-Bilbao line is hardly any better, and average speeds on
> that route are under than 60kph. In view of that, the only way to cut
> journey times is to build HSLs.
How many regional trains left? None?
> On Leon-Gijon, that will require a 30-km tunnel under Pajares Pass, whose
> construction started last Autumn and will last 4-5 years.
Okay. You didn't expect he original constructors to do that, did you?
Regards, ULF
--
________________________________________________________________________
Ulf Kutzner Backhaushohl 46 D-55128 Mainz
________________________________________________________________________
Egocrata
If there's enough demand to keep regional services there, Renfe will stay.
If not, it will stop having them. Somehow, I feel that the lines are too old
to offer services good enough to atract demand when competing to buses, or
stuff like that.
The Pajares line is not great, by any means, I feel. Long, twisted, with
step gradients, and with huge amounts of tunneling and bridging... a tunnel,
I feel, probably was more expensive, but it was worth it.
"Ulf Kutzner" <kutz...@mail.uni-mainz.de> escribió en el mensaje
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@linux1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE...
P.L.Guillemin
Ulf Kutzner <kutz...@mail.uni-mainz.de> a écrit dans le message :
Pine.LNX.4.58.04...@linux1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE...
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, P.L.Guillemin wrote:
>
> > Services between Madrid and the Atlantic coast are unfrequent and slow,
> > although 160kph is allowed within the Avila-Vitoria-Leon Triangle.The
prime
> > reason is the mountain range along the North Coast, which unduly
penalises
> > journey times. On Madrid-Gijon, one has to go through the Pajares pass
> > (between Leon and Oviedo), with a ill-designed route, so much so that it
> > takes one hour just to run on 8km in a bee-line... Even worse than the
> > Gottard Line in the vicinity of Wassen...
>
> Why ill-designed? What is your design and cost for that?
At least, a design closer to Alpine routes built 1 century ago, which are
not as twisty, and often dual-tracked. But I concede that Pyrenean-style
mountains are not as easy to cross as the Alps, with narrower and steeper
valleys....
> > The Miranda de Ebro-Bilbao line is hardly any better, and average speeds
on
> > that route are under than 60kph. In view of that, the only way to cut
> > journey times is to build HSLs.
>
> How many regional trains left? None?
There is currently no regional service on Miranda-Bilbao, where Llodio is
the only interesting city. The route is so slow that coach services are much
faster than GL services.
Once the HSL opens up between both cities, the conventionalline will
probably lose all its passenger services.
But the new route will open up far more interesting opportunities in
regional traffic: it will connect Bilbao directly with Vitoria, the capital
of Euzkadi, and will have intermediate stations.
While Miranda-Bilbao nos takes 01.35 or so, only 27 min will suffice to run
from Vitoria to Bilbao.
On Leon-Oviedo, tehre are 2 regional (stopping) services, with very
uncompetitive journey times. I guess they will also disappear and be
replaced with Iris services using the HSL.
> > On Leon-Gijon, that will require a 30-km tunnel under Pajares Pass,
whose
> > construction started last Autumn and will last 4-5 years.
>
> Okay. You didn't expect he original constructors to do that, did you?
No. But mind you, there were plans for a base tunnel under the Sierra de
Guadarrama as early as the 1860s. There will eventually be such tunnel by
2006-2007, also of 30km in length, on the Madrid-Valladolid HSL.
Best regards
Phil
Flosta
"Egocrata" <egoc...@terra.es> wrote in message
news:c5m0c6$j6e$1...@nsnmpen3-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net...
>
> I agree with your point of view. Yes, the network is too centralized, and
> the HSL map only confirms this tendency. The right has a traditional
> obssesion with creating a radial network, and it shows.
Very debatable... before the recent MAdrid-Lerida inauguration, apart from
the AVE Madrid-Seville radial line, weren't the improvements on the
Barcelona-Valencia line (hard to define as radial) the most important
intervention on the RENFE network in the last decades?
You define the interventions on the Barcelona-Valencia line as "limited
upgrade": are there cases of heavier radial or non-radial upgrades on the
RENFE network (again, exluding the AVE Madrid-Seville), in the last
decades?
> Some decissions are
> borderline stupid, really. Andalucia internal connections are awful, and
the
> projected HSL plans left most cities better communicated with Madrid than
> with Seville, the regional capital.
With a braoder view, than the simple "adminsitrative" one, one can better
appreciate the sense of certain investments.
Do you have an aproximate idea of how the trafic of the Malaga airport
compares with the trafic of Seville airport, in spite of the fact that
Malaga has less residential population than Seville and belongs to the
region whose capital is Seville?
Don't you believe that this is an indicator that other considerations apart
from those that you mention should be taken into account in a wise (not
"borderline stupid") planning of railway investments?
The construcion of the Madrid-Malaga HSL will undoubtely have enourmous
benefits for rail traffic on the Malaga-Madrid route, which will increase
enourmously the share of the transport market of trains compared to
"competitors" (planes, buses and cars).
Not to mentions economical interest from tourism (combination of "art&city"
tourism in Madrid with "beach" tourism in the Malaga region).
Morover, seeing the HSL plans only as "favouring better connnections with
Madrid than Seville and disregarding Andalusian internal connections", is at
least extemely reductive and negative, if not completely false: how do you
rate the improvements on the
- Cordoba-Malaga
- Seville-Cadiz
- Seville-Huelva
- Seville-Granade
- etc.
(all andalusian province capitals) connections according to the present HSL
plans, compared to the present connections?
In you answer, you may want to take as an example the best connection time
between Seville and Huelva today and what will be with the HSL in place. The
comparison of the distance in km of the highway and of the railway line
between the two cities will also allow people who do not know the region,
have an idea of how badly the planned HSL is needed and will benefit
everybody, local/regional connections included.
Regards
Flosta
Ulf Kutzner
>
> Madrid- Toledo right now is the worst served regional line of the country,
> by far.
Will have a look at Canfranc.
Regards, ULF
Ulf Kutzner
> On Leon-Oviedo, tehre are 2 regional (stopping) services, with very
> uncompetitive journey times.
Traveled with one about 15-18 years ago. Impressive, train was similar
to
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/es/electric/historic/277/7706-1.jpg
Regards, ULF
Arthur Figgis
>So one could use "Apex" or specific company discounts tied to a specific
>seat on a specific train. But these suffer if the connecting train is late;
>the receiving train refuses to honour the ticket due to the delay (different
>train company!), and charges the full fare on top of the Apex already paid.
>Yes, this has happened to my wife ! As a consequence, she now drives a hire
>car to Manchester instead. Much more reliable cost and more reliable journey
>time, not so good for the planet.
Are you sure about not allowing you to continue your journey without
buying a new ticket if a connection is late? I thought if you had a
/through/ ticket they would still try to get you there. Where people
come unstuck is when they buy two separate A-B and a B-C tickets, then
the A-B train is late and the operator of the B-C train won't let them
travel. If thay had bought an A-C ticket, they would be able to get
the next B-C train.
>In contrast, I was caught up in France during the strikes last summer. There
>was no problem transferring pre-booked tickets to the next available train
>when delayed.
>
>
>> Yes. Even if I disagree with privatization, UK one has had some
>> positive aspect. But the renewal of rolling stock was carried out with
>> very heavy subsidies.
>
>Not to mention the stupendeous amounts spent on the West Coast main line
>(London - Manchester) renewals, which might drag it up to 1990's standards.
Or state of the art 1960s...
>Some calculations suggest the UK could have had a new TGV London-Manchester
>line for less....
Or someone could go to the moon...
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
B.Rumary
> Paris-Frankfurt in 4hrs is already too long for business travellers.
>
Why? By the time you have added in the time needed to get to and from
the airports at each end, the delays for security, etc., then the air
times are likely to be no faster than those for rail.
Brian Rumary, England
Sette_Bello
> Sette_Bello <v_d...@nomade.fr> a écrit dans le message :
> e44f86b0.04041...@posting.google.com...
> > U have the right to disagree with me, but the trouble is u get at me
> > more than at my arguments. It's sad to find that you've learned
> > nothing from our precedent clashes, I thought you would get cooler.
> > But it's in keeping with what I told you a few weeks ago, that you
> > seem an anal character, stubborn, agressive, uninteresting.
>
> I have that right, as a citizen,
> > without being lambasted by a mascalzone like you.
>
> Please try to use a friendlier, more respectful tone on this NG, and refrain
> from personal attacks.
That's what I usually do sorry I know it's not very nice to read, but
it's in reaction.
Best regards
sb
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Phil
Phil Richards
<plgui...@hotmail.com> said...
> Quite simply because most of these have little experience, if any, of how
> railways can work in other countries. Many think that Britain's Railways are
> just a set of accidents,
Britain's railways have a reputation of high fares and poor reliability.
Put two and two together and you end up with a product or service which
is poor value for money.
> and ignore the positive aspects of Britain's railways, like Saver fares,
Which are basically time restricted walk-up fares. The way things are
going these "Leisure" products are being made more and more restricted.
Given 5 or 10 years time I wouldn't be surprised to see they will have
vanished altogether with the option of fixed departure advance purchase
fares or (over priced) full priced fully flexible tickets.
Walk up fares are hardly uncommon in most other European countries BTW
both on mainline and local routes.
--
Phil Richards
London, UK
Home page: http://www.philrichards1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
P.L.Guillemin
B.Rumary <brian....@virgin.net> a écrit dans le message :
VA.000028b...@virgin.net...
> P.L.Guillemin wrote:
>
> > Paris-Frankfurt in 4hrs is already too long for business travellers.
> >
> Why? By the time you have added in the time needed to get to and from
> the airports at each end, the delays for security, etc., then the air
> times are likely to be no faster than those for rail.
With no checked-in luggage, 3hrs is a realistic journey time from Paris to
Frankfurt, on a centre-to-centre basis.
Best regards
Phil
P.L.Guillemin
Flosta <flos...@ftnetwork.com> a écrit dans le message :
c5o1hf$912$1...@sunnews.cern.ch...
>
> "Egocrata" <egoc...@terra.es> wrote in message
> news:c5m0c6$j6e$1...@nsnmpen3-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net...
> >
> > I agree with your point of view. Yes, the network is too centralized,
and
> > the HSL map only confirms this tendency. The right has a traditional
> > obssesion with creating a radial network, and it shows.
>
> Very debatable... before the recent MAdrid-Lerida inauguration, apart from
> the AVE Madrid-Seville radial line, weren't the improvements on the
> Barcelona-Valencia line (hard to define as radial)
Agreed, but there used to be IC services Barcelona or Portbou-Madrid via
Valencia, until 1999.
the most important
> intervention on the RENFE network in the last decades?
TRue, but Barcelona-Valencia is now substandard (PTF 1987 vs PIT 2000). Had
works been postponed on this line until the early-00s, we would have had a
continuous, dedicated HSL, tailored for 350 kph, instead of the existing
line rebuilt for 220kph...
> You define the interventions on the Barcelona-Valencia line as "limited
> upgrade": are there cases of heavier radial or non-radial upgrades on the
> RENFE network (again, exluding the AVE Madrid-Seville), in the last
> decades?
Not that I know, but one could quote comparable examples:
_ double-tracking of Madrid-Zaragoza in the late-70s and early-80s, with
continuous electrification, track renewals, and some variantes
_ electrification of Madrid-Valencia via La Encina in the late-70s,
alongside upgrades for 140kph (1980), then 160 (1986).
The Directo on Madrid-Burgos (1968) and the shortcut on
Medina-Zamora-Ourense (1959) were also substantial actions, but very much
behind today's standards, though...
> The construcion of the Madrid-Malaga HSL will undoubtely have enourmous
> benefits for rail traffic on the Malaga-Madrid route,
This is the 4th most important domestic route of Iberia, juste below
Madrid-Barcelona, Madrid-Bilbao and Madrid-Vlencia.
which will increase
> enourmously the share of the transport market of trains compared to
> "competitors" (planes, buses and cars).
With a journey time cut down to 3hrs in 2005 and 02.20 in 2007, air traffic
will go up in smoke. Iberia is already looking to code-share with RENFE-AVE
on its core routes...
> Morover, seeing the HSL plans only as "favouring better connnections with
> Madrid than Seville and disregarding Andalusian internal connections", is
at
> least extemely reductive and negative, if not completely false: how do you
> rate the improvements on the
>
> - Cordoba-Malaga
45min vs. 02.00-03.15
> - Seville-Cadiz
50min vs. 01.30-01.50
> - Seville-Huelva
40min vs. 01.20-01.40
> - Seville-Granade
01.25 via Cordoba vs 03.10-03.25
> - etc.
> (all andalusian province capitals) connections according to the present
HSL
> plans, compared to the present connections?
Almeria-Granada will not be concerned, though. But as I have already said,
the Junta de Andalucia is lobbying for a "missing link" on
Jaén-Granada-Almeria.
Best regards
Phil
Ulf Kutzner
> The Directo on Madrid-Burgos (1968) and the shortcut on
> Medina-Zamora-Ourense (1959) were also substantial actions, but very much
> behind today's standards, though...
Electrify. Without electrification, there are *few* trains.
I agree that you won't make 220+ on these lines.
Regards, ULF
P.L.Guillemin
Ulf Kutzner <kutz...@mail.zdv.uni-mainz.de> a écrit dans le message :
4086AB56...@mail.zdv.uni-mainz.de...
> "P.L.Guillemin" schrieb:
>
> > The Directo on Madrid-Burgos (1968) and the shortcut on
> > Medina-Zamora-Ourense (1959) were also substantial actions, but very
much
> > behind today's standards, though...
>
> Electrify. Without electrification, there are *few* trains.
Diesel traction would be no clog on a 5-fold traffic increase on those
lines.
> I agree that you won't make 220+ on these lines.
Their perspectives are very very narrow. Once HSLs are completed in those
areas, both lines are bound to lose the whole of their meager passenger
services. They will probably survive, though, but as Freight-only routes.
Best regards
Phil
Ulf Kutzner
> > > The Directo on Madrid-Burgos (1968) and the shortcut on
> > > Medina-Zamora-Ourense (1959) were also substantial actions, but very
> much
> > > behind today's standards, though...
> >
> > Electrify. Without electrification, there are *few* trains.
>
> Diesel traction would be no clog on a 5-fold traffic increase on those
> lines.
Okay but they don't want to change locos on a Madrid - Irún service
which means Burgos - Irún under catenary with diesel or routing via
Ávila. They would love to have free pathes on Madrid <-> Avila, I guess.
Regards, ULF
P.L.Guillemin
> "P.L.Guillemin" schrieb:
>
> > > > The Directo on Madrid-Burgos (1968) and the shortcut on
> > > > Medina-Zamora-Ourense (1959) were also substantial actions, but very
> > much
> > > > behind today's standards, though...
> > >
> > > Electrify. Without electrification, there are *few* trains.
> >
> > Diesel traction would be no clog on a 5-fold traffic increase on those
> > lines.
>
> Okay but they don't want to change locos on a Madrid - Irún service
Because that's a Talgo service, although this one has fallen down RENFE's
hierarchy of Mainline services. The most prestigious one in 1950-1969. Now
the least attractive one, setting aside the very few remaining Diurnos.
The defunct Puerta del Sol, Media Luna, Iberia Expreso conversely changed
locos at Burgos...
> which means Burgos - Irún under catenary with diesel
True, but given the lightweight of a 7-car Talgo III set, oil consumption is
almost negligeable.
In 2001, one could however see a Class 252 hauling the 353 and the Talgo III
set on Irun-Burgos.
or routing via
> Ávila. They would love to have free pathes on Madrid <-> Avila, I guess.
Simply wait until 2006-2007. Then many spare paths will be available. At the
moment, paths are levelled down at peaks.
Anyway, there isn't that much traffic that could run via Aranda rather than
via Valladolid...
Best regards
Phil
Christian Torrego
> Because that's a Talgo service, although this one has fallen down RENFE's
> hierarchy of Mainline services. The most prestigious one in 1950-1969. Now
> the least attractive one, setting aside the very few remaining Diurnos.
>
> The defunct Puerta del Sol, Media Luna, Iberia Expreso conversely changed
> locos at Burgos...
In Miranda de Ebro actually.
> > which means Burgos - Irún under catenary with diesel
>
> True, but given the lightweight of a 7-car Talgo III set, oil consumption is
> almost negligeable.
>
> In 2001, one could however see a Class 252 hauling the 353 and the Talgo III
> set on Irun-Burgos.
>
>
> or routing via
> > Ávila. They would love to have free pathes on Madrid <-> Avila, I guess.
>
> Simply wait until 2006-2007. Then many spare paths will be available. At the
> moment, paths are levelled down at peaks.
>
> Anyway, there isn't that much traffic that could run via Aranda rather than
> via Valladolid...
Indeed, as Valladolid is an important market on the line. That's why
the Francisco de Goya's has been running via Avila since 1998.
Regards,
Christian
Ulf Kutzner
> > or routing via
> > > Ávila. They would love to have free pathes on Madrid <-> Avila, I guess.
> >
> > Simply wait until 2006-2007. Then many spare paths will be available. At the
> > moment, paths are levelled down at peaks.
> >
> > Anyway, there isn't that much traffic that could run via Aranda rather than
> > via Valladolid...
>
> Indeed, as Valladolid is an important market on the line. That's why
> the Francisco de Goya's has been running via Avila since 1998.
True but freight trains might avoid Valladolid. Not sure about how many
freight needs transportation between Madrid and Burgos.
Regards, ULF
Egocrata
"Ulf Kutzner" <kutz...@mail.zdv.uni-mainz.de> escribió en el mensaje
news:40878C85...@mail.zdv.uni-mainz.de...
There is quite a lot traffic, but Renfe prefers to move it using the Avila
line, as is cheaper to operate. More modern signaling, and -above all-
electrified. Adding on top the traditional Renfe shortage of diesel locos,
you get the picture.
"El Directo de Burgos", in case, being a comparatively "new" line, is a
fairly bad one. Track condition is decent, but the line is curvy as hell. It
is so bad, in fact, that the plattform allows double track, but the
additional space has been used to give a more decent layout to the single
track that stays in place. It was a classical Francoist Spain public work:
hare brained, not cost effective, and outdated when it opened. :-(. With a
good diesel loco fleet and TRDs or 598 trains it could be still useful, but
right now, is a joke. It handles 4 trains a day, for God's sake.
> Regards, ULF
Flosta
"P.L.Guillemin" <plgui...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c664fh$cin$1...@news-reader2.wanadoo.fr...
>
> Flosta <flos...@ftnetwork.com> a écrit dans le message :
> c5o1hf$912$1...@sunnews.cern.ch...
> >
[on Barcelona-Valencia upgrade]
> TRue, but Barcelona-Valencia is now substandard (PTF 1987 vs PIT 2000).
Had
> works been postponed on this line until the early-00s, we would have had a
> continuous, dedicated HSL, tailored for 350 kph, instead of the existing
> line rebuilt for 220kph...
Well, that's a point of view: your sentence
"Had works been postponed on this line until the early-00s,.."
could also end with
"... will still had the old line" (with a lot of parts limited at around
80-90 kph).
I mean: better to be sure to have since several years a 220 kph line than to
be sure to have just a projet to refurbish to 350 kph a 80-120 kph line...
(sorry for my pessimistic view).
Anyway, AFAIK, the 220 kph Barcelona-Valencia upgrade is compatible with a
relatively light intervention to convert to UIC, isn't it?
Would a speed upgrade (combined with the UIC transition, perhaps?), at least
to 300 be realistic?
> > You define the interventions on the Barcelona-Valencia line as "limited
> > upgrade": are there cases of heavier radial or non-radial upgrades on
the
> > RENFE network (again, exluding the AVE Madrid-Seville), in the last
> > decades?
>
> Not that I know, but one could quote comparable examples:
>
> _ double-tracking of Madrid-Zaragoza in the late-70s and early-80s, with
> continuous electrification, track renewals, and some variantes
Are you sure that Madrid-Zaragoza is FULLY double-track?
I travelled on Zaragoza-MAdrid in 2000 and I'm pretty sure (I basically
found confirmation on maps) that there are several parts (several dozens
kilometers long) single tracks.
Plus, speed limit is in the range 80/90 kph for entire half hours of run (on
the best trains...)
Hard to compare to the upgrade of the Barcelona-Valencia line, to me...
> The Directo on Madrid-Burgos (1968) and the shortcut on
> Medina-Zamora-Ourense (1959) were also substantial actions, but very much
> behind today's standards, though...
Yeah... very long sections at 80/90 kph and top speed should be 120 (or
more?)
Again, hard to compare to the upgrade of the Barcelona-Valencia line, to
me...
So, you basically confirm that after the Madrid-Seville AVE, the following
biggest effort on spanish railroads was the Barcelone-Valencia upgrade.
And even if you do not consider it precisely as HS (but according to several
definitions, HS is defined as > 200 kph, sometimes even 180 kph), 220 kph is
way better than any other line in Spain.
Let's not forget that on Madrid-Lerida passengers will travel at 200 kph max
for several months ahead (at least, if not years...).
So Barcelona-Valencia is the Spanish top speed line after Madrid-Seville.
I really cannot see how Egocrata can write "the network is too centralized"
or about "obssesion with creating a radial network".
Let's compare abroad: France would compare to Spain if the Rhin-Rhône HSL
would have followed the Paris-Lyon LGV (but the Rhin-Rhône is still to come,
and a lot of other radial LGVs will be running before that).
Italy should have started the works on the Torino-Milano or Milano-Venezia
(or both) soon after the completion of the Roma-Florence.
Instead the radial lines Rome-Napoli and Florence-Bologna are likely to be
completed first.... Even the Bologna-Milano will be probably finished before
the entire Torino-Venezia.
Egocrata complains about "radiality" in Spain, which is infact a rather good
example of much less "radiality" than other Countries...
> which will increase
> > enourmously the share of the transport market of trains compared to
> > "competitors" (planes, buses and cars).
>
> With a journey time cut down to 3hrs in 2005 and 02.20 in 2007, air
traffic
> will go up in smoke. Iberia is already looking to code-share with
RENFE-AVE
> on its core routes...
Thanks for the precise info above and below, of which I had an aproximate,
fairly good idea.
As you probably have understood, I was waiting for Egocrata to give this
precise info, since his judgement was so negative and severe.
Sometimes silence says more than words! ;-)
Hope the mismatch between his negative and severe point of view and the
expected "measurable" benefits of the spanish HSL plan is clear.
> > Morover, seeing the HSL plans only as "favouring better connnections
with
> > Madrid than Seville and disregarding Andalusian internal connections",
is
> at
> > least extemely reductive and negative, if not completely false: how do
you
> > rate the improvements on the
> >
> > - Cordoba-Malaga
>
> 45min vs. 02.00-03.15
>
>
> > - Seville-Cadiz
>
> 50min vs. 01.30-01.50
>
>
> > - Seville-Huelva
>
> 40min vs. 01.20-01.40
>
>
> > - Seville-Granade
>
> 01.25 via Cordoba vs 03.10-03.25
>
>
> > - etc.
> > (all andalusian province capitals) connections according to the present
> HSL
> > plans, compared to the present connections?
>
> Almeria-Granada will not be concerned, though. But as I have already said,
> the Junta de Andalucia is lobbying for a "missing link" on
> Jaén-Granada-Almeria.
My list didn't mean to be exhaustive (see "etc.").
For Jaen, one could probably add the Cordoba-Jaen connection (and/or
Jaen-Granada, Jaen-Seville???) and keeping the discussion only on province
capitals, it should be noted that connections will become realistic, ex:
Huelva-Granada/Cordoba/Malaga via Sevilla, etc.
Today if you propose to an Andalusian to take the train to go from Huelva to
Granada, he would probably laugh (in the best case....).
With the HSL plan it will be by far competitive compared to buses and even
to cars.
Of course the present HSL plan does not cover all regional wishes (would any
other do?) and probably the inhabitants of the small town X lost in the
Sierra or even of a province capital like Almeria will not find a lot of
advantages.
So of course I hope that Spain has the will (and the money!) to enhance its
already good HSL plan.
But it is wrong, too, to say that only the "big" cities/province capitals
would benefits: one should think about the small towns served by Cercanias
(in Sevilla and Malaga), Regional trains, buses, etc., which will benefit
for regional travels of connections in the cities involved directly by the
HSL improvements.
Knowing the benefits of the HSL plan for Andalusia, I doubt that it is
justified to take Andalusian internal connections as per the HSL plan, as an
enlightening example of the "borderline supidity of some decisions".
I wish that other Countries had an HSL plan similar to the spanish one!
Flosta
P.L.Guillemin
> I mean: better to be sure to have since several years a 220 kph line than
to
> be sure to have just a projet to refurbish to 350 kph a 80-120 kph line...
Barcelona-Valencia was cleared for 160kph in 1986, with some speed
restrictions, though...
> (sorry for my pessimistic view).
>
> Anyway, AFAIK, the 220 kph Barcelona-Valencia upgrade is compatible with a
> relatively light intervention to convert to UIC, isn't it?
On paper, yes, it is.
The upgraded portions have sleepers that contemplate future re-gauging. But
these sleepers are single-gauge only, unlike those on Tardienta-Huesca.
That implies lengthy blockades, with all-out disruptions. That's the big
downside of those upgrades undertaken under the PTF 1987: works last more
than for a brand new HSL, traffic flows are not segregated, and regauging to
UIC standards is too disruptive.
All that has led to an extensive review in the late-90s, which gave way for
the PIT 2000-2007, with a radically different perspective: genuine HSLs,
standard-gauge as of construction, and fully segregated from the rest of the
network.
On Barcelona-Valencia (or more precisely on Cambrils-Castellon), a regauging
to 1435mm would require existing traffic to die overnight and to revive
immediately once works had reached completion, which is all the more foolish
as there is no diversionary route.
> Would a speed upgrade (combined with the UIC transition, perhaps?), at
least
> to 300 be realistic?
The upgrade has been specified for 220kph, not 300kph, and this has had an
impact on curvature.
At 300kph, coexistence with freight traffic would be very problematic.
A brand new HSL on Castellon-Cambrils would be a better solution, and some
local politicians in that area now argue for this case.
> > _ double-tracking of Madrid-Zaragoza in the late-70s and early-80s, with
> > continuous electrification, track renewals, and some variantes
>
> Are you sure that Madrid-Zaragoza is FULLY double-track?
91% of it. Calatayud-Ricla remains single-tracked, and account for 30km.
Impossible to add a second track on that segment.
> Plus, speed limit is in the range 80/90 kph for entire half hours of run
(on
> the best trains...)
That is the case on Ricla-Calatayud.
There are also similar kinds of speed restrictions in the Jalon Valley, one
at 70 (for all Tipos) IIRC. Even though it had some 22 cars, the pre-HSL
"Triana" displayed impressive acceleration capabilities when moving out of
those places...
> Hard to compare to the upgrade of the Barcelona-Valencia line, to me...
Agreed as regards performance, but if you compare Madrid-Zaragoza today with
its condition when Talgo III stock began to run in 1964, things have changed
in a vary comparable extend to that on Barcelona-Valencia since 1993.
> > The Directo on Madrid-Burgos (1968) and the shortcut on
> > Medina-Zamora-Ourense (1959) were also substantial actions, but very
much
> > behind today's standards, though...
>
> Yeah... very long sections at 80/90 kph and top speed should be 120 (or
> more?)
AFAIK, curvature on Madrid-Burgos is not lower than 500 or 450m. Speeds
range from 90 to 140, but only Talgo Pendular stock can reach such top
speed.
> Again, hard to compare to the upgrade of the Barcelona-Valencia line, to
> me...
Agreed in terms of performance. But the Directo was a genuine new Line,
devoid of level-crossings, with gradients contained at 10%o, albeit not
high-speed at all...
> So, you basically confirm that after the Madrid-Seville AVE, the following
> biggest effort on spanish railroads was the Barcelone-Valencia upgrade.
> And even if you do not consider it precisely as HS (but according to
several
> definitions, HS is defined as > 200 kph, sometimes even 180 kph), 220 kph
is
> way better than any other line in Spain.
For the time being, Barcelona-Valencia is restricted to 200kph. 220kph
requires either ATP or ERMTS 1.
> Let's not forget that on Madrid-Lerida passengers will travel at 200 kph
max
> for several months ahead (at least, if not years...).
Clearance for higher speeds should occur within some months. The Swiss have
sorted out their ERMTS problems, so let's keep our fingers crossed...
> So Barcelona-Valencia is the Spanish top speed line after Madrid-Seville.
Yes, together with Madrid-Valencia/Alicante.
> I really cannot see how Egocrata can write "the network is too
centralized"
> or about "obssesion with creating a radial network".
Egocrata is partly right about that. But that's only provisional IMHO.
> Let's compare abroad: France would compare to Spain if the Rhin-Rhône HSL
> would have followed the Paris-Lyon LGV (but the Rhin-Rhône is still to
come,
Now that Local elections are behind us, promises are forgotten. LGV
Rhin-Rhone Stage 1 is not foreseen earler than 2012-2013...
> and a lot of other radial LGVs will be running before that).
That between Paris and the Northeast will be the last...
> My list didn't mean to be exhaustive (see "etc.").
> For Jaen, one could probably add the Cordoba-Jaen connection (and/or
> Jaen-Granada, Jaen-Seville???)
There are already AEx services on Jaen-Cadiz, so that should be possible. At
a first stage, variable-gauge HS regional EMUs. The distance on
Espeluy-Cordoba is not that big, so a single-track HSL could easily see
light there. The Guadalquivir Valley leaves enough room for that.
> Today if you propose to an Andalusian to take the train to go from Huelva
to
> Granada, he would probably laugh (in the best case....).
Agreed. But rail transport will already look more attractive to go from
Sevilla to Granada.
> But it is wrong, too, to say that only the "big" cities/province capitals
> would benefits: one should think about the small towns served by Cercanias
> (in Sevilla and Malaga), Regional trains, buses, etc., which will benefit
> for regional travels of connections in the cities involved directly by the
> HSL improvements.
Especially as Spain has rejected the French concept of TGV Parkway
Stations...
> Knowing the benefits of the HSL plan for Andalusia, I doubt that it is
> justified to take Andalusian internal connections as per the HSL plan, as
an
> enlightening example of the "borderline supidity of some decisions".
>
> I wish that other Countries had an HSL plan similar to the spanish one!
So do I. France could have led the trend, having in mind all those grand
plans made 10 years ago, but all that has gone to the dogs, sadly.
Best regards
Phil
NC
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:38:44 +0100, "NC" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> So one could use "Apex" or specific company discounts tied to a
>> specific seat on a specific train. But these suffer if the
>> connecting train is late; the receiving train refuses to honour the
>> ticket due to the delay (different train company!), and charges the
>> full fare on top of the Apex already paid. Yes, this has happened to
>> my wife ! As a consequence, she now drives a hire car to Manchester
>> instead. Much more reliable cost and more reliable journey time, not
>> so good for the planet.
>
> Are you sure about not allowing you to continue your journey without
> buying a new ticket if a connection is late? I thought if you had a
> /through/ ticket they would still try to get you there.
This was a through ticket, with the second leg on a booked seat. The delay
was the first leg where the ticket was "any train". 2nd operator didn't want
to know about the delay on another operator. Had it been me, I'd have got
on the train and argued with the guard, refused to pay anything extra and
suggested that the guard could have my name and address to continue the
correspondance. I suspect the guard would have given up. However, my wife
was less inclined to argue with officialdom at the information desk, and
paid.
> Where people
> come unstuck is when they buy two separate A-B and a B-C tickets, then
> the A-B train is late and the operator of the B-C train won't let them
> travel. If thay had bought an A-C ticket, they would be able to get
> the next B-C train.
Which appears to be the current position. AFAIK, one cannot purchase a
through discounted ticket with the two operators, the restrictions on savers
have been extended making the journey impossible at the times we used to
use. The full price ticket is exhorbitant.
It is cheaper than the full fare to hire a car for two or three days, have
it delivered to our home in the sticks, and pay for its petrol. Therefore
another car joins the M6. At least the car air-conditioning works and you
get to choose the music.
--
NC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.
P.L.Guillemin
Egocrata <egoc...@terra.es> a écrit dans le message :
8gOhc.24866$_L6....@twister.auna.com...
[Directo vs. Avila Route]
> There is quite a lot traffic, but Renfe prefers to move it using the Avila
> line, as is cheaper to operate. More modern signaling,
El Directo has automatic signalling, doesn't it?
and -above all-
> electrified. Adding on top the traditional Renfe shortage of diesel locos,
Really? I conversely gathered that 333s were relatively surplus to RENFE's
needs...
> you get the picture.
>
> "El Directo de Burgos", in case, being a comparatively "new" line, is a
> fairly bad one. Track condition is decent, but the line is curvy as hell.
True, but gradients are not steeper than 10%o, and curves are not tighter
than 450-500m. The Avila route does not have so good features in the
vicinity of La Cañada IIRC...
It
> is so bad, in fact, that the plattform allows double track,
and Loading-gauge is already compatible with OHLE.
but the
> additional space has been used to give a more decent layout to the single
> track that stays in place. It was a classical Francoist Spain public work:
> hard brained,
For decades IIRC.
> not cost effective,
How come?
and outdated when it opened. :-(.
In 1968, Most main lines were still restricted to 120kph in Spain. Only did
Madrid-Barcelona-Cerbère (via Caspe) derogate to that ceiling and was partly
cleared for 140kph. But in the 70s and even more in the 80s, El Directo
became truly substandard.
With a
> good diesel loco fleet and TRDs or 598 trains it could be still useful,
but
> right now, is a joke. It handles 4 trains a day, for God's sake.
Even with tilting trains, market potential will remain limited I m afraid.
Apart than Aranda de Duero (30,000 inhabitants IIRC), there is no other
urban centre on this route. With a 160D path, a TRD 598 will never be faster
than 02.15. Once the HSL Madrid-Valladolid opens, 01.45 will suffice, with a
far higher market potential (Segovia+Valladolid). The construction of the
Valladolid-Burgos (and beyond) HSL will further cut journey times and reduce
the scope for conventional services between Madrid and Burgos/Euzkadi.
Best regards
Phil
Flosta
> On Barcelona-Valencia (or more precisely on Cambrils-Castellon), a
regauging
> to 1435mm would require existing traffic to die overnight and to revive
> immediately once works had reached completion, which is all the more
foolish
> as there is no diversionary route.
I thought the line was completely double track.
In that case, regauging can be done anyway one track at the time, no need to
stop the entire trafic overnight and untill the full completion of the
regauging for the entire line.
> At 300kph, coexistence with freight traffic would be very problematic.
But far from impossible.
> There are also similar kinds of speed restrictions in the Jalon Valley,
one
> at 70 (for all Tipos) IIRC. Even though it had some 22 cars, the pre-HSL
> "Triana" displayed impressive acceleration capabilities when moving out of
> those places...
Frankly, I was impressed much more by the slowliness of the Triana...
It reminded me some travels on the sicilian branches of some "espressos"
(surprising for the only line connecting the two biggest cities in Spain,
untill some months ago...)
> > > The Directo on Madrid-Burgos (1968) and the shortcut on
> > > Medina-Zamora-Ourense (1959) were also substantial actions, but very
> much
> > > behind today's standards, though...
> >
> > Yeah... very long sections at 80/90 kph and top speed should be 120 (or
> > more?)
>
> AFAIK, curvature on Madrid-Burgos is not lower than 500 or 450m. Speeds
> range from 90 to 140, but only Talgo Pendular stock can reach such top
> speed.
>
>
> > Again, hard to compare to the upgrade of the Barcelona-Valencia line, to
> > me...
>
> Agreed in terms of performance. But the Directo was a genuine new Line,
> devoid of level-crossings, with gradients contained at 10%o, albeit not
> high-speed at all...
Agreed. But anyway some 40 years (Madrid-Burgos) to almost 50 years
(Medina-Zamora-Ourense)... to me, it start slipping in the "last century",
rather than "last decades" upgrades...
> > Let's not forget that on Madrid-Lerida passengers will travel at 200 kph
> max
> > for several months ahead (at least, if not years...).
>
> Clearance for higher speeds should occur within some months. The Swiss
have
> sorted out their ERMTS problems, so let's keep our fingers crossed...
I join you with mine...
> > My list didn't mean to be exhaustive (see "etc.").
> > For Jaen, one could probably add the Cordoba-Jaen connection (and/or
> > Jaen-Granada, Jaen-Seville???)
>
> There are already AEx services on Jaen-Cadiz, so that should be possible.
I couldn't yet look at the maps of the HSL plan I have, but I remember that
only one way was noted as HS connection to Jaen.
I'm not sure (this is why I didn't cite it at the beginning), but I think it
was between Cordoba and Jaen only.
> > But it is wrong, too, to say that only the "big" cities/province
capitals
> > would benefits: one should think about the small towns served by
Cercanias
> > (in Sevilla and Malaga), Regional trains, buses, etc., which will
benefit
> > for regional travels of connections in the cities involved directly by
the
> > HSL improvements.
>
> Especially as Spain has rejected the French concept of TGV Parkway
> Stations...
That's is definetely a good thing to me, although there are reasons and
justifications to the TGV Parkway Stations.
> > Knowing the benefits of the HSL plan for Andalusia, I doubt that it is
> > justified to take Andalusian internal connections as per the HSL plan,
as
> an
> > enlightening example of the "borderline supidity of some decisions".
> >
> > I wish that other Countries had an HSL plan similar to the spanish one!
>
> So do I. France could have led the trend, having in mind all those grand
> plans made 10 years ago, but all that has gone to the dogs, sadly.
Who knows, it would not be the first case of resurrection of a plan....
In the mean time, France can enjoy the most extended and successfull HS
"network" (actually basically the only real network...) for many years to
come.
I remember people celebrating for Spain having faster trains than France as
of 2002...
And personally I cannot share the feeling for "competition" in having more
HSL than other countries...
Flosta
P.L.Guillemin
>
> "P.L.Guillemin" <plgui...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c68ll6$j7j$1...@news-reader1.wanadoo.fr...
> > On Barcelona-Valencia (or more precisely on Cambrils-Castellon), a
> regauging
> > to 1435mm would require existing traffic to die overnight and to revive
> > immediately once works had reached completion, which is all the more
> foolish
> > as there is no diversionary route.
>
> I thought the line was completely double track.
Now that Oropesa del Mar-Las Palmas (Castellon) has its brand -new
Variante, the only segment left with single track is Tarragona-Vendellos.
But the by-pass is to open in 2006 or so.
> In that case, regauging can be done anyway one track at the time,
Too complex IMHO. And that would be incompatible with the current traffic
levels. 2 single tracks do not equate to a homogenous double-track I m
afraid...
no need to
> stop the entire trafic overnight and untill the full completion of the
> regauging for the entire line.
>
> > At 300kph, coexistence with freight traffic would be very problematic.
> But far from impossible.
Forget it. The Barcelona-Figueras HSL will accommodate no Freight for
similar reasons, save a handful of fast Intermodal services, if spare paths
are available...
> > There are also similar kinds of speed restrictions in the Jalon Valley,
> one
> > at 70 (for all Tipos) IIRC. Even though it had some 22 cars, the pre-HSL
> > "Triana" displayed impressive acceleration capabilities when moving out
of
> > those places...
>
> Frankly, I was impressed much more by the slowliness of the Triana...
I m taking of the times when it only took 2hrs50 to run from Zaragoza to
Madrid, nonstop. A truly impressive trip, with speed changes at almost every
second.
If you or anyone else is interested, I have a Speed Table for the whole
Madrid-Zaragoza-Lerida-Barcelona-Cerbère route, dating from 2002.
[HSL to Jaén]
> I'm not sure (this is why I didn't cite it at the beginning), but I think
it
> was between Cordoba and Jaen only.
No, between Madrid and Jaen, using in part the Madrid-Sevilla HSL. This
project will imply extensive tunneling to cross the Despeñaperros canyon,
and merely resumes plans made in the 80s, and later dropped and replaced by
the Madrid-Sevilla HSL.
> > Especially as Spain has rejected the French concept of TGV Parkway
> > Stations...
>
> That's is definetely a good thing to me, although there are reasons and
> justifications to the TGV Parkway Stations.
Which ones?
> > > I wish that other Countries had an HSL plan similar to the spanish
one!
> >
> > So do I. France could have led the trend, having in mind all those grand
> > plans made 10 years ago, but all that has gone to the dogs, sadly.
>
> Who knows, it would not be the first case of resurrection of a plan....
There is no money for that. And limits of the TGV model as developped for
the past 20 years are now perceptible...
> In the mean time, France can enjoy the most extended and successfull HS
> "network" (actually basically the only real network...) for many years to
> come.
>
> I remember people celebrating for Spain having faster trains than France
as
> of 2002...
Well, It had always been stated that 2002 would be a mere transitional step,
and that one would have to wait until 2004 to run at full speed on
Madrid-Barcelona. While higher speeds will probably be allowed in a few
month's time, the HSL will reach Barcelona-Sants in stages...
> And personally I cannot share the feeling for "competition" in having more
> HSL than other countries...
All those HSLs will have an impact on the league tables for passenger
mainline operators, though... SNCF now acknowledges that RENFE is its most
dangerous competitor alongside DB in the brave new world of liberalised
railways...
Best regards
Phil
Sette_Bello
> "Sette_Bello" <v_d...@nomade.fr> wrote in message
> news:e44f86b0.04041...@posting.google.com...
>
> Wow!
> I see that your insults are very reasoned and motivated! ;-)
Well, they are not, but one can't get at other peolpe and complain
being gotten at by other people.
Without lingering in a figure quarrel, I think that UK, Germany,
Belgium, among others, rank better than France for
passenger/inhabitants rate.
And if you put domestic Ile de France figures aside, France is far
behind most EU countries. Including Italy.
> And you are very good at getting at arguments, not at people! ;-)))
>
> Regarding
>
> > > Not too bad for a Country that "has completely missed its railways'
> strategy
> > > in the last 20-30 years" (in Mr Sette_Bello's opinion, of course)!
> > You aren't honest...
>
> I quoted "has completely missed its railways' strategy in the last 20-30
> years", because it resumes the sense of your post(s), which was the subject
> of the comments.
No, the sense of my post is : ok for the TGV, but let's now spend a
lot of money reputting the classic network (where most passengers do
their journeys) in shape.
U see everything in black and white. I just say 'TGV is grey'. TGV is
ok for some social needs, not all.
so long