Re: Me, the foamer!
P.L.Guillemin
George Conklin wrote:
>
> Adam Kadlubek wrote:
> >
> > So that is why most of short distance airlines in europe shut
> > off when HSR railroads came into existance!
> >
> If government spends huge amounts of money putting in and
> subsidizing short-haul trains, then, yes, a heavily-subsidized
> trip can in fact control travel.
There is no subsidy on the Paris to Lyon high speed service.
Agreed as it is one of the deerest routes in France, but other TGV routes
are cross-subsidized, either by TGV routes or even by non-TGV services,
through track user charges...
Some TGV services are even directly subsidised.
> In that case, people always want to use the highest subsidy. Some
> French TGV trains don't even make their track charges.
You have proof of that? I have never seen any report that said that.
The French Railway system is now brought under scrutiny from the legislative
chambers.
Recent reports have complained with the mediocre, if not declining financial
balance of mainline services has not improved notwithstanding massive
TGV-related investments.
User charges paid by SNCF mount up to EUR 2 Bn yearly. Sadly the mere
operating costs for infrastructure are in the region of EUR 4Bn...
The current system is simply unsustainable. MPs have just suggested to raise
TGV fares so as to maximise revenue.
Some services like Paris-Milan are also regarded more as a prestige fad than
as something really relevant.
> But when you can run a system which loses billions a year, you
> can always attribute profits to one or two trains to justify
> about anything.
While the total SNCF might be losing "billions", the TGV network
operates under its own set of finances.
No, it does not.
Thats one of the reasons why SNCF is steadily streamlining its non-TGV
mainline business. TGV is so cash-consuming that there are only peanuts left
to revamp the rest...
Your suggestion that they
somehow bury costs is simply uninformed. The TGV system is a relatively
successful part of the passenger operations in France.
At first sight yes, but in fact, there are a number of hidden costs that
radically alter the final picture...
Best regards
Phil
Greg Gritton
P.L.Guillemin wrote:
> ...
>
> Recent reports have complained with the mediocre, if not declining financial
> balance of mainline services has not improved notwithstanding massive
> TGV-related investments.
>
> User charges paid by SNCF mount up to EUR 2 Bn yearly. Sadly the mere
> operating costs for infrastructure are in the region of EUR 4Bn...
>
> The current system is simply unsustainable. MPs have just suggested to raise
> TGV fares so as to maximise revenue.
>
> Some services like Paris-Milan are also regarded more as a prestige fad than
> as something really relevant.
>
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
>>But when you can run a system which loses billions a year, you
>>can always attribute profits to one or two trains to justify
>>about anything.
>
>
> While the total SNCF might be losing "billions", the TGV network
> operates under its own set of finances.
>
> No, it does not.
>
> Thats one of the reasons why SNCF is steadily streamlining its non-TGV
> mainline business. TGV is so cash-consuming that there are only peanuts left
> to revamp the rest...
>
The TGV is one of the few rail systems worldwide to actually pay for
a substantial portion of its initial investment. I believe the
majority of the construction costs of the high-speed lines was
financed based on ticket sales, not a subsidy. Operationally,
(not counting debt), the TGV system is well into the black.
That seems to be doing pretty well.
Of course, it is harder to say whether some of the money that was
spent on the high-speed lines could have been better spent on the
convtional system. It is possible, but I don't know if it is likely.
Frances has achieved a far more cost effective high-speed rail system
than just about anywhere else in the world. The only country that
seems to be able to duplicate it is Spain. High-speed lines
everywhere else cost singificantly more than in France.
Sincerely,
Greg Gritton
P.L.Guillemin
"Greg Gritton" <grittonNO...@AMverizon.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:TIkIc.42865$6e7....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> The TGV is one of the few rail systems worldwide to actually pay for
> a substantial portion of its initial investment.
That was the case for Paris-Lyons. That line proved very cheap and has
accommodated for a large amount of traffic since day one. Double-digit
inflation in the early-80s has also helped very much...
Subsequent projects required a governement subsidy for most of them:
LGV Atlantique (1985/1990): 30%
LGV Rhône-Alpes (1989/1994): 30%
LGV Nord (1988/1993) and Paris Eastern Beltway (1990/1996): nil
LGV Mediterranée (1995/2001): 10%
Forthcoming projects will require a far higher amount of public funding: LGV
Est (Stage 1 2002/2007) will resort to the taxpayer for 65%.
I believe the
> majority of the construction costs of the high-speed lines was
> financed based on ticket sales, not a subsidy.
The problem is that save for Paris-Lyons, traffic forecasts were grossly
inflated. That means that repayment of all or most of the investment through
user charges is now problematic. While SNCF strives on that battleground, it
is unable to cater well for other market segments.
The various French Administrations would have never given their go-ahead to
such projects had those projects required a huge subsidy. So traffic
forecasts were sexed up, so as to improve the economic case of HSLs...
Operationally,
> (not counting debt), the TGV system is well into the black.
> That seems to be doing pretty well.
Seemingly, yes. Actually, not.
Running from Brussels to Marseilles with the weekly "Sun Thalys" in just
04:42 is indeed a nice experience.
But reality is not so rosy...
> Of course, it is harder to say whether some of the money that was
> spent on the high-speed lines could have been better spent on the
> convtional system. It is possible, but I don't know if it is likely.
I don't really complain with the very idea of HSLs. Rather with the way this
has been implemented so far....
> Frances has achieved a far more cost effective high-speed rail system
No, it has not.
Other countries have better value for money: they spend less, but get more
out of each unit incurred.
And as I have said before, the French system features hidden costs and
substantial cross-subsidisation from non-TGV services.
Once hidden costs are really passed to TGV services and cross-subsidies are
over, expect either (a) a steep fare increase or, (b) a far-reaching
reshaping of TGV operations or, (c) a combination of (a) and (b) or, (d) a
huge cheque from the taxpayer, to be renewed every year...
> than just about anywhere else in the world. The only country that
> seems to be able to duplicate it is Spain. High-speed lines
> everywhere else cost singificantly more than in France.
HSLs now cost quite a lot in France. Pro km, the Valence-Marseilles/Nimes
LGV costs the same as a German NBS like Fulda-Wurzburg or
Mannheim-Stuttgart.
Only Spain can boasts a really low construction bill. That's because this
country has a rather low density of population, with very cheap land in
rural areas. Yet, costs are also on the rise there. But the Spanish
governement, unlike its French counterpart, is resolute to foot the
construction bill. And unlike SNCF, RENFE Mainline and High-speed services
are profitable... That means that there won't be any further, recurrent
liability for the taxpayer once HSLs enter service
Best regards
Phil
P.L.Guillemin
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:slrncfdd03.20p...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> P.L.Guillemin schrieb:
>
>
> > "Greg Gritton" <grittonNO...@AMverizon.net> a écrit dans le
message de
>
> >
> > No, it has not.
> >
> > Other countries have better value for money: they spend less, but get
more
> > out of each unit incurred.
>
>
> Certainly not Germany. And Britain spends more like "France x 2" or
> "France x 3".
>
> I think that the French LGV system deserves critizising, especially for
> the worst interconnection to regional traffic. But the kilometer costs
> for building the lines still don't look bad to me.
I am not talking of the mere initial construction costs. I was actually
meaning the operating costs of overall railway systems.
True, an LGV would have much cheaper than the current WCML upgrade, which is
more a regeneration (yet still needed) than a real upgrade, all in all...
> > HSLs now cost quite a lot in France. Pro km, the
Valence-Marseilles/Nimes
> > LGV costs the same as a German NBS like Fulda-Wurzburg or
> > Mannheim-Stuttgart.
>
> ,,, after > 10 years of inflation.
Construction costs remained very stable in France throughout the 90s, until
1998/1999.
The TGV Med project was fully specified in 1994, and most of the contracts
were
signed at that time. Compared to the estimate made in 1994, the project has
been delivered on budget.
Mind you, the Fulda-Wurzburg NBS has a far higher proprtion of tunnels and
Brdges than LGV Med...
> > Only Spain can boasts a really low construction bill. That's because
this
> > country has a rather low density of population, with very cheap land in
> > rural areas.
>
> Yes, but this isn't really comparable. Don't forget from where they
> started. I did a cycle tour through Spain in 1980, all around, Hendaye to
> Zamora to Sevilla and Murcia and back to France via the d'Envalira ... as
> soon as you left the major roads (as cyclists love to do) and the tourist
> regions, this was a 3rd world country.
I see what you mean. I ve had similar experiences in the Balkans, Turkey and
North Africa...
> As well, protests were less likely. In 1980, people still lowered their
> voice, when the Guardia Civil was around.
It used to be the same in France until the mid/late-70s... Protest
demonstrations would usually end up with a few deaths at the very least...
Plus progress of
> industrialization was celebrated. In Spain, locating a campground
> directly at a refinery was still considered normal, in 1980.
All that used to be pretty normal in France until the mid-70s, too... Have a
cycle ride in Feyzin just south of Lyons :-)
> Take this situation, build new motorways and railroads through a
> countryside, which is rocks, brown grass and some olive trees, and its
> going to be cheap. That's not comparable to the Provence, the Westerwald,
> or Kent.
Hajo, we both completely agree on that point (See some of my former posts).
However, don't forget that we're talking of a mountainous country. 1/3 of
the Madrid-Zaragoza HSL is built at an altitude of 1,000m to 1,200m, which
makes it the highest HSL in Europe (Japan must still have the world record
with the Joestsu line Tokyo-Niigata...)
To run at high speed from Madrid to Gijon by 2010 will require two 30-km
tunnels (1 under the Sierra de Guadarrama and 1 under the Pajares pass...).
Last but not least: building HSLs until the very city centres requires
complex and lengthy works, far more than those made in Sevilla and Cordoba
in 1988/1993. Barcelona is going to be a huge works site until 2008/2009.
Same with other cities like Malaga, Valladolid, Pamplona, Logrono, Valencia,
Alicante and Murcia... This notwithstanding, construction costs will remain
relatively low.
> As well, don't overlook that there is huge progress on the passenger rail
> side of things, but freight ... may I have your microscope, please?
4-5% of market share. Not that much, agreed.
But 10 years ago, there were 2 chances out of 3 that it would end up with a
0 market share.
Best regards.
Phil
P.L.Guillemin
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:slrncfdd03.20p...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> P.L.Guillemin schrieb:
>
>
> > "Greg Gritton" <grittonNO...@AMverizon.net> a écrit dans le
message de
>
> >
> > No, it has not.
> >
> > Other countries have better value for money: they spend less, but get
more
> > out of each unit incurred.
>
>
> Certainly not Germany. And Britain spends more like "France x 2" or
> "France x 3".
>
> I think that the French LGV system deserves critizising, especially for
> the worst interconnection to regional traffic. But the kilometer costs
> for building the lines still don't look bad to me.
I am not talking of the mere initial construction costs. I was actually
meaning the operating costs of overall railway systems.
True, an LGV would have much cheaper than the current WCML upgrade, which is
more a regeneration (yet still needed) than a real upgrade, all in all...
> > HSLs now cost quite a lot in France. Pro km, the
Valence-Marseilles/Nimes
> > LGV costs the same as a German NBS like Fulda-Wurzburg or
> > Mannheim-Stuttgart.
>
> ,,, after > 10 years of inflation.
Construction costs remained very stable in France throughout the 90s, until
1998/1999.
The TGV Med project was fully specified in 1994, and most of the contracts
were
signed at that time. Compared to the estimate made in 1994, the project has
been delivered on budget.
Mind you, the Fulda-Wurzburg NBS has a far higher proprtion of tunnels and
Brdges than LGV Med...
> > Only Spain can boasts a really low construction bill. That's because
this
> > country has a rather low density of population, with very cheap land in
> > rural areas.
>
Egocrata
We don't have all that trouble with high density population (Spain has 80
people per Square Km, compared to 240 of Britain) but the sheer amount of
mountains and hilly terrain the country has makes some lines horribly
expensive. The Madrid Zaragoza line starts at 600 m above sea level,
reaches 1145 m and descents to 200 m. Lleida Barcelona is going to be even
more expensive; before reaching the coast you have to deal with hilly
terrain all the way, and the coast it is indeed very populated. The pleasant
plains of France or Kent are hard to find here, beside Castille, and even
there the HSL to the north needs a 28 km tunnel to cross the Sierra de
Madrid....
P.L.Guillemin
"Egocrata" <egoc...@terra.es> a écrit dans le message de
news:DFtKc.2093$R7....@twister.auna.com...
> Well, the bill for building HSL is not low in Spain, really.
The whole Madrid-Barcelona project has been valued at EUR 8 Bn. IIRC.
For 700km something (including the Valles by-pass and the remodelling within
Barcelona from Can Tunis to San Andreu Comtal), that 's still a very good
bargain, with less than EUR 12 M per km...
That's accordingly much more expensive than Madrid-Sevilla (EUR 6M per km),
but both projects are not comparable, and one has to take into account the
Spanish inflation rate recorded meanwhile, which has ranked well above the
Euroland average...
> We don't have all that trouble with high density population (Spain has 80
> people per Square Km, compared to 240 of Britain) but the sheer amount of
> mountains and hilly terrain the country has makes some lines horribly
> expensive. The Madrid Zaragoza line starts at 600 m above sea level,
> reaches 1145 m and descents to 200 m. Lleida Barcelona is going to be even
> more expensive; before reaching the coast you have to deal with hilly
> terrain all the way, and the coast it is indeed very populated.
Very much agreed. Yet, costs remain pretty cheap by Northern European
standards...
The pleasant
> plains of France or Kent are hard to find here, beside Castille, and even
> there the HSL to the north needs a 28 km tunnel to cross the Sierra de
> Madrid....
Not to mention Pajares, or the tunnels on the Basque Y, or that planned from
Pierrefitte-Nestalas (France) to Biascas (40km), or that under the Puerto de
Bejar on the Ruta de la Plata (if...) or those between la Puebla de Sanabria
and Ourense, or between Bobadilla and Malaga/Algeciras...
All in all, very good news for the Japanese industry...
Best regards.
Phil
Stephen Sprunk
news:cdenjr$2bg$1...@news-reader2.wanadoo.fr...
> The whole Madrid-Barcelona project has been valued at EUR 8 Bn. IIRC.
>
> For 700km something (including the Valles by-pass and the remodelling
within
> Barcelona from Can Tunis to San Andreu Comtal), that 's still a very good
> bargain, with less than EUR 12 M per km...
>
> That's accordingly much more expensive than Madrid-Sevilla (EUR 6M per
km),
> but both projects are not comparable, and one has to take into account the
> Spanish inflation rate recorded meanwhile, which has ranked well above the
> Euroland average...
How the heck do they get costs so low? Over here, the costs for FOX were
quoted at about USD 29M/mi (USD 18M/km) and even that seems rather
optimistic. I don't recall the figures for the Texas TGV, but it was
several times higher.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
Egocrata
Also take into account that the expropiation laws in Spain are very friendly
for the buyer of the land, that is, the state. So friendly, in fact, that
they buy land under market price quite consistently.
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:slrncgh90n.ldh...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> Stephen Sprunk schrieb:
>
> > How the heck do they get costs so low? Over here, the costs for FOX
were
> > quoted at about USD 29M/mi (USD 18M/km) and even that seems rather
> > optimistic. I don't recall the figures for the Texas TGV, but it was
> > several times higher.
>
>
> European highspeed track has very different price tags. The record figure
> for Madrid - Sevilla is very unusual. Normal figures are:
>
> AVE Madrid - Lerida, Spain: 10 million EUR / km
> LGV Atlantique, France: 10 million EUR / km
> LGV Mediteranee, France: 24 million EUR / km
> NBS Cologne - Rhein/Main, Germany: 32 million EUR / km
> Roma - Napoli, Italy 44 million EUR / km
> HSL Zuid, Netherlands 48 million EUR / km
> Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Great Britain 72 million EUR / km
>
> It might be most interesting, to compare Spain and Britain.
> In Spain, the costs for planning, project management, and legal advisory
> are 2-3% of the project costs. In Britain, this figure is 25%, and for
> the CTRL, it is higher (exact figure, anyone?).
>
> So you have planning / management / legal costs of
> Spain: ~ 250 000 EUR / km
> Britain: > 18 000 000 EUR / km
>
> meaning that planning a highspeed line in Britain might need about as
> much money as actually building it in Spain.
>
>
>
> Regarding the very first, super-cheap AVE Madrid-Sevilla, the Spaniards
> took a very simple and relaxed approach to highspeed rail.
>
> They asked: "Who builds the best highspeed track? France." and hired the
> SNCF as their consultant.
> They then asked: "Who has the best signaling system? Germany." and hired
> Siemens to install LZB.
> They then asked: "Who builds the best highspeed trains? Alstom." and
> bought TGV.
>
> So they collected experience, and built their own engineering team while
> implementing on the basis of the world's best practice. Today, they can
> build their own track, and the fastest highspeed trains are built in
> Spain (with some help from Kassel).
>
>
> The approach in Britain has been the other way round: When Railtrack was
> privatized, the management of the new company decided, that engineering
> is best bought on the free market. So they got rid of the existing team
> of engineers, that they had inherited from British Rail. Instead, they
> hired consultants.
>
> I don't know, how it has worked for the CTRL, but for the WCML, it is
> clear, what happened:
> Railtrack hired a team of consultants, who were supposed to suggest a
> solution to the signal system problem - the existing signalboxes were
> overdue for replacement. These consultants suggested a wireless system
> with moving block, and Railtrack based its planning on this suggestion.
>
> The irony is: On their team of consultants, there wasn't a single person
> with experience in moving block signaling. Even worse, none of these had
> any contact to the railroads, which were actually working on it. They got
> rid of their inhouse knowledge, hired consultants without qualification,
> and based their decisionmaking on it - decisionmaking about the most
> important piece of track in Britain.
> As a result, they bankrupted Railtrack, and today, the British taxpayer
> has to add billions of pounds to get out of the mess.
>
> Regarding the CTRL, I don't know how it happened, but I know, that the
> decisions were made by the same managers, and that since 1996, there
> wasn't any competent engineering team overlooking the process.
>
> This gives you a comparison Spain - Britain.
>
>
>
>
> Now the USA. If you look at FRA Tier II requirements, you'll notice that
> it is explicitely forbidden, to use the existing best practice in
> highspeed rail. It is _required_ to ignore the common knowledge about
> feasible ways to build such systems.
>
> So while Spain has collected the world's knowledge about highspeed rail,
> the US government has forbidden to use the world's knowledge about
> highspeed rail.
>
> Is that enough of an explanation?
>
>
> Hans-Joachim
>
>
>
> --
> What Railtrack did in 1996 was quite exceptional, which was to take a
really
> high-calibre engineering team on the BR system and destroy it.
>
> Chris
Green
tim
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrncgh90n.ldh...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> Stephen Sprunk schrieb:
>
were
> > quoted at about USD 29M/mi (USD 18M/km) and even that seems rather
> > optimistic. I don't recall the figures for the Texas TGV, but it was
> > several times higher.
>
>
> for Madrid - Sevilla is very unusual. Normal figures are:
>
> AVE Madrid - Lerida, Spain: 10 million EUR / km
> LGV Atlantique, France: 10 million EUR / km
> LGV Mediteranee, France: 24 million EUR / km
> NBS Cologne - Rhein/Main, Germany: 32 million EUR / km
> Roma - Napoli, Italy 44 million EUR / km
> HSL Zuid, Netherlands 48 million EUR / km
> Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Great Britain 72 million EUR / km
Where do you get that figure from?
It was supposed to be 1.9 billion pounds for 108KM is 26 million
Euro per KM. wwhere has the rest come from?
And in any case are they comparing like with like:
Do the bills include financing costs, which for government builds
will be nil but for commercial builds could be 20% of the total,
What the the requirement to compensate owners of the land
for using it for a new railway
And is there a requirement to make compensatory payments to
operators when their current service is inconvenience by the
new build? Since privatisation, for maintenance work in the UK
this can be 20-30% of the total bill when in BR days it was nothing.
> It might be most interesting, to compare Spain and Britain.
> In Spain, the costs for planning, project management, and legal advisory
> are 2-3% of the project costs. In Britain, this figure is 25%, and for
> the CTRL, it is higher (exact figure, anyone?).
25% for these costs is unbelievabley high, I suspect that it includes
the compensation bills I discussed above
tim
P.L.Guillemin
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:slrncgh90n.ldh...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
> European highspeed track has very different price tags. The record figure
> for Madrid - Sevilla is very unusual. Normal figures are:
>
> AVE Madrid - Lerida, Spain: 10 million EUR / km
> LGV Atlantique, France: 10 million EUR / km
No, EUR 7M/km
> LGV Mediteranee, France: 24 million EUR / km
No, EUR 15M/km
> NBS Cologne - Rhein/Main, Germany: 32 million EUR / km
> Roma - Napoli, Italy 44 million EUR / km
> HSL Zuid, Netherlands 48 million EUR / km
> Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Great Britain 72 million EUR / km
No, 62M/km, with a 1:1.40 exchange rate.
> It might be most interesting, to compare Spain and Britain.
> In Spain, the costs for planning, project management, and legal advisory
> are 2-3% of the project costs. In Britain, this figure is 25%, and for
> the CTRL, it is higher (exact figure, anyone?).
No precise idea. But the mere professional charges (Bankers, Accountants,
Solicitors, Surveyors, Consultants...) incurred when designing and bringing
into force
the London Underground PPPs already mount up to some £500M... Excluding the
legal costs incurred when the GLA challenged in Court the Whitehall
technocrats on that issue.
Staggering property rates in Southeast England have'nt helped, either.
> Regarding the very first, super-cheap AVE Madrid-Sevilla, the Spaniards
> took a very simple and relaxed approach to highspeed rail.
>
> They asked: "Who builds the best highspeed track? France." and hired the
> SNCF as their consultant.
True, but they also opted for German tracks and catenary (RE-250)
> They then asked: "Who has the best signaling system? Germany." and hired
> Siemens to install LZB.
> They then asked: "Who builds the best highspeed trains? Alstom." and
> bought TGV.
And Siemens locos, which were already proven as BR-120s in Germany, while
Sybic 26000s were still taking shape in France.
RENFE was clever enough to get rather onerous provisions in the contracts it
signed with Siemens and Alstom has regards life cycle cost...
> The approach in Britain has been the other way round: When Railtrack was
> privatized, the management of the new company decided, that engineering
> is best bought on the free market.
Even before the listing of Railtrack, the Major Cabinet had decided to
segregate Infra engineering from Railtrack
> Regarding the CTRL, I don't know how it happened, but I know, that the
> decisions were made by the same managers, and that since 1996, there
> wasn't any competent engineering team overlooking the process.
In 1996, CTRL was a much more mature project than the WCRM. CTRL has been
delivered on time (at least on Dollands Moor-Southfleet Jct) and on budget
compared to the forecasts made when the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996
was passed
Best regards
Phil
tim
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
>
> tim schrieb:
>
>
> > Where do you get that figure from?
>
>
thanks, found it, I'll have a look later.
> > Do the bills include financing costs, which for government builds
> > will be nil but for commercial builds could be 20% of the total,
>
> Why should they? Or more precisely: Why should inefficiency be copied?
No that's just not right. Building a 2 billion euro piece of
infrastructure with a life of 50+ years that recoups its capital
costs from 50+ years of user charges (and appropriate
environmental rebates) always has a large financing costs.
Having a government pay for it as current expenditure and then
writing it off and sticking the income in the revenue column
doesn't make that cost go away, it just hides that cost under
another heading.
> Let's compare two railroad systems:
>
> 1) Infrastucture built with public funds, operation without subsidy.
> 2) Infrastructure built with railroad funds, operation subsidized.
>
> If the railroad does not have the chance, to recoup the infrastructure
> costs, it is clear, that model 1) uses less taxpayer money. That's the
> difference between a practical and an ideological approach: Ideology has
> a price tag, to be paid by the taxpayer.
I accept that full commercial funding makes the money cost more but
this isn't the cost I was referring to.
tim
George Conklin
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
>>
> Highspeed rail has the same capital costs as motorways, city streets,
> schools, Scottish parliament buildings. There is nothing special about
> it.
>
>
> Hans-Joachim
>
>
Are we back to the idea that "if police departments do not make a profit,
then high speed rail should not either?"
Robin Payne
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
>
> Stephen Sprunk schrieb:
>
> > How the heck do they get costs so low? Over here, the costs for FOX
were
> > quoted at about USD 29M/mi (USD 18M/km) and even that seems rather
> > optimistic. I don't recall the figures for the Texas TGV, but it was
> > several times higher.
>
>
> for Madrid - Sevilla is very unusual. Normal figures are:
>
> AVE Madrid - Lerida, Spain: 10 million EUR / km
> LGV Atlantique, France: 10 million EUR / km
> Roma - Napoli, Italy 44 million EUR / km
> HSL Zuid, Netherlands 48 million EUR / km
> Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Great Britain 72 million EUR / km
>
> In Spain, the costs for planning, project management, and legal advisory
> are 2-3% of the project costs. In Britain, this figure is 25%, and for
> the CTRL, it is higher (exact figure, anyone?).
>
> Spain: ~ 250 000 EUR / km
> Britain: > 18 000 000 EUR / km
>
> meaning that planning a highspeed line in Britain might need about as
> much money as actually building it in Spain.
It is worth considering that the CTRL in Britain (particularly phase 2) has
an abnormally high proportion of tunnel compared with most high speed lines.
I suspect if you take separate figures for "tunnel" and "not tunnel" for
each, the CTRL would not look quite as bad as it appears from these
comparissons.
Robin
Brian Williams
--
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrncgtgjc.994...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> Robin Payne schrieb:
>
>
> > It is worth considering that the CTRL in Britain (particularly phase 2)
has
> > an abnormally high proportion of tunnel compared with most high speed
lines.
> > I suspect if you take separate figures for "tunnel" and "not tunnel" for
> > each, the CTRL would not look quite as bad as it appears from these
> > comparissons.
>
>
> That's correct: After adjusting for that, the CTRL is only 3.5 times as
> expensive per mile as Madrid - Lerida, not 7 - 8 times.
>
> But it has to be added, that some part of that tunneling has been forced
> by questionable decisionmaking by the British government. They want it to
> accomodate freight, but don't have a concept for generating enough
> railfreight to justify the investment.
>
> If built with 3.5% (as in France) or 4% (as in Germany) of grade, there
> might be some tunnel miles less.
>
>
>
> Hans-Joachim
>
>
>
> --
> What Railtrack did in 1996 was quite exceptional, which was to take a
really
> high-calibre engineering team on the BR system and destroy it.
>
> Chris
Green
Not really, Hans-Joachim- the bulk of the tunnelling on Section 2 is to pass
under the Thames, then followed by tunnels under the route of the North
London line as there is no space on the surface for any additional track. On
section 1, the main tunnel is the one under the North Downs, which I don't
think could be made much shorter by steeper gradients, as it already starts
against the side of the slope, with a very busy road (M20-M2 link) above the
portal.
Brian
Graeme Wall
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
> Robin Payne schrieb:
>
>
> > It is worth considering that the CTRL in Britain (particularly phase 2) has
> > an abnormally high proportion of tunnel compared with most high speed
> > lines. I suspect if you take separate figures for "tunnel" and "not
> > tunnel" for each, the CTRL would not look quite as bad as it appears from
> > these comparissons.
>
>
> That's correct: After adjusting for that, the CTRL is only 3.5 times as
> expensive per mile as Madrid - Lerida, not 7 - 8 times.
>
> But it has to be added, that some part of that tunneling has been forced
> by questionable decisionmaking by the British government. They want it to
> accomodate freight, but don't have a concept for generating enough
> railfreight to justify the investment.
>
The tunnels are nothing to do with operating freight but with the political
route that was adopted: basically run it through as many opposition
constituencies as possible to reduce upsetting your own NIMBYs.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
P.L.Guillemin
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:slrncgsbtq.tfs...@odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> tim schrieb:
>
>
> > No that's just not right. Building a 2 billion euro piece of
> > infrastructure with a life of 50+ years that recoups its capital
> > costs from 50+ years of user charges (and appropriate
> > environmental rebates) always has a large financing costs.
>
>
> highspeed rail doesn't, with a few exceptions like Paris-Lyon
Thx to remarkably low construction costs, which were changed into dust some
time later by double-digit inflation rates...
and the
> Tokaido Shinkansen. Making the trains pay for their operation plus the
> maintenance of the infrastructure is a realistic goal, which works under
> less exotic circumstances.
That is the case in Germany and Spain.
> If it is known, that the capital costs won't be recouped, adding these
> "large financing costs" is nothing but a money transfer: Taken from the
> taxpayer, given to the banks.
+Law Firms, Consultancy firms, Insurance companies...
At the end of the day, you end up with crazy transactional costs
A direct cheque of HM Treasury to the Corporation of London would lead to
comparable results, in a fare more straightforward way...
> It's funny to see, that a conservative government in Spain refused this
> kind of robbery scheme,
Well, the then newly-elected Aznar Government thought of PPPs and alike in
1996/1997, in an attempt to meet the Maastricht critria. The GIF itself was
supposed to be the very first implementation of those plans.
Final outcome has been very diferent, though, although that governement has
stimulated construction on toll autopistas, usually to relieve free
autovias.
One could also make interesting financial comparisons the Jubilee Line
Extension and the Mounster extensions of the Madrid Metro at the same
time....
> while New Labour participates with a smile.
With PPPs, New Labour has indeed embarked for unchartered waters...
Mind you, theye were filibustering against the Major Cabinet brainchild, viz
PFI (not PPP), when this were shaped in thre mid-90s. Yet, one Tory PFI has
worked pretty well: the Northern Line rolling-stock replacement.
But instead of forging PFI ahead with the London Underground, the Blair
Cabinet wanted to set down its own blueprint: PPP.
Privately owned, but publicly funded and guaranteed...
And IMHO, outright privatisation of London underground or issuing
governement-backed bonds (with LT becoming an autonomous agency, as it was
in the 1930s) would have been much better options than the current PPP.
> Either a piece of infrastructure is able to recover its costs, or it
> isn't. If it isn't, the public is going to pay the bill, either by
> bailout (see WCML), or by subsidy to train operators, which is used to
> pay the track access charges.
Well, WCML combines both: direct invesment grants + huge operating subsidies
to Virgin West Coast, which has one of the highest subsidy/passenger ratio
in the UK, while partly-competing GNER is able to pay a premium to the SRA
:-((((
> The taxpayer takes over the bill this or that way. The only difference
> is interest rates: Either the interest rates paid by private
> corporations, or the interest rates achieved by the treasury, or, if the
> country isn't indebted, no interest rate at all.
Britain has one of the lowest public debt/GDP ratio in the whole Western
worls, which means that government-backed bond issues would benefit from
very low intesrt rates (4-5%)
> And one shouldn't overlook, that parking public debt in repayment schemes
> for infrastructure projects involves very high risk. For an illustrative
> example see Japan.
> The Tokaido Shinkansen was profitable, but after that, JR was forced to
> build more and more of that. The costs weren't put in the budget, but
> accumulated as a debt of JR. In the end, it were so many billions, that
> they contributed to the economic crisis of Japan.
How come?
Similar schemes would
> be imaginable with Network Rail.
Could you expand on that please?
> > I accept that full commercial funding makes the money cost more but
> > this isn't the cost I was referring to.
>
> Highspeed rail has the same capital costs as motorways, city streets,
> schools, Scottish parliament buildings. There is nothing special about
> it.
Fai enough, but PPP-style PFIs are now burgeoning all other the UK: School
PFI,
Hospital PFI, Museum PFI, Motorway PFI, Road PFI, Prison PFI, Court PFI...
Who knows, maybe Buckingham Palace or the Houses of Parliament or the Royal
Inns of Court will end up as PFIs...
Best regards
Phil
P.L.Guillemin
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> a écrit dans le message de
>
> P.L.Guillemin schrieb:
> >> LGV Mediteranee, France: 24 million EUR / km
> >
> > No, EUR 15M/km
> Don't know where the discrepancy comes from, but at least, one hopes that
> such reports are prepared with more care, than I can invest into a Usenet
> posting.
This figure comes from the French Court of Audit, which has been very
critical on the project outcome fors ome years.
> >> Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Great Britain 72 million EUR / km
> >
> > No, 62M/km, with a 1:1.40 exchange rate.
>
> In this case, one /really/ hopes that a commission of the British
> government has the figures available?
CTRL is a £5.2Bn project, with 117 km of HSL.
> > True, but they also opted for German tracks and catenary (RE-250)
>
> Didn't know about the tracks.
The points are also German, and the tunnels through the Sierra Morena bear
more resemblance with those on Fulda-Wurzburg than those on Lyons-Valence.
Conversely, the points fitted on the Spanish conventional network from 1986
( i.e. when top speed was upgraded from 140 to 160 on major routes) are from
Austria.
> > And Siemens locos, which were already proven as BR-120s in Germany,
while
> > Sybic 26000s were still taking shape in France.
>
> This was still deeply in state railroad times, and so there was also a
> compensation deal, which brought us the Intercity Night, the best part of
> the deal.
Yes, I remember that. Pity that the deal did not eventually extend to
daytime Talgo sets, which IMHO would have been a much better option on
Munich-Zurich and Stuttgart-Zurich than ICT and ICTD...
> > Even before the listing of Railtrack, the Major Cabinet had decided to
> > segregate Infra engineering from Railtrack
>
> Running it as a separate subsidiary makes sense. All in all, DB
> Projektbau doesn't that bad a job. But if you /separate/ it from the
> network owner, it will be the /interest/ of infra engineering, to build
> as expensive as possible.
>
> BTW: How are architects and planner paid in the UK?
On PPP projects, they often get a % out of the whole budget, but the budget
itself is capped, and any cost overrun in on the PPP consortium.
In Germany, it is a
> serious problem, that they are paid with a percentage of the sum. That's
> another reason for civil servants often achieving lower prices than the
> free market.
Same problem in France. Worse than that, Some state engineers/planners (Eg
those from the Ponts et Chaussées) earn a commission out of the project
bill, on top of their higher official wage. In other words, all the upsides
of the Professions and Civil Service without the usual drawbacks...
Best regards
Phil
Brian Williams
>
>
> > Fai enough, but PPP-style PFIs are now burgeoning all other the UK:
School
> > PFI,
> > Hospital PFI, Museum PFI, Motorway PFI, Road PFI, Prison PFI, Court
PFI...
>
> PFI?
> Aküfi?
Private Finance Initiative- basically, the idea was to reduce apparent
Treasury debt by getting private contractors to take the 'risk', with the
local or central government paying a lease on the asset instead of meeting
the initial capital cost. Jarvis were involved in PFIs in education, but got
their fingers burnt. Other, normally competent contractors, have pulled out
of PFIs due to 'difficulties' with them. I have seen articles that suggest
that the whole-life cost of these projects is notably higher than that which
might be incurred with a normal project funded by government loans. Sadly
Blair et alia seem obsessed with them.
Brian
P.L.Guillemin
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> a écrit dans le message de
>
> P.L.Guillemin schrieb:
>
>
> >> Making the trains pay for their operation plus the
> >> maintenance of the infrastructure is a realistic goal, which works
under
> >> less exotic circumstances.
> >
> > That is the case in Germany and Spain.
>
>
> (17 pairs of ICE, 2 pairs normal loco hauled,
Which conventional services do actually run on Fulda-Rohrbach?
22 pairs of freight,
> sometimes a little more freight)
Lille-Calais Fréthun and Avignons-Manduel (for Nîmes) even accommodate fewer
traffic.
Madrid-Sevilla does not accom that much South of Puertollano: 19 AVE+3
Altaria+6 to 9 Talgo 200, and yet, Infra maintenance costs are recouped...
> At least for Fulda-Rohrbach, my bets are against recovering maintenance
> costs. It's a common joke over here - when closure of some rural line is
> suggested, we say that Fulda-Rohrbach needs to get closed first, by the
> same criteria.
User charges on Fulda-Rohrbach are higher than those payable on rural lines,
aren't they?
> > Well, WCML combines both: direct invesment grants + huge operating
subsidies
> > to Virgin West Coast, which has one of the highest subsidy/passenger
ratio
> > in the UK, while partly-competing GNER is able to pay a premium to the
SRA
> > :-((((
>
> Yes, sure, but that's not Virgin's fault.
The Subsidy profile went out of control from 2000 onwards. True, initial
plans were eyeing 125mph with full tilt as from 2002, and 140mph on
London-Crewe by 2005.
Yet, subsidies paid in 2002/2003 are higher than those paid in 2000/2001...
Virgin Franchises (WC and XC) are said to be poorly managed. For 1 1/2 yrs,
VT and the SRA have unsucessfully tried to remedy this drift. But talks have
just
collapsed, and the SRA now reserves its right to kick Virgin out, as it did
1 year ago with Connex.
> Virgin has to take the blame for the garbage they use for a train
> interior, but not for the WCML.
Pendolini have reportedly gone through serial failures in the last days...
> > Could you expand on that please?
>
> If more infrastructure is built at CTRL and WCML prices, Network Rail
> could run into an ever-increasing debt scheme,
That is simply not going to happen. A set of new reforms is to come into
force in the next months. NR will absorb the SRA and the ORR, and all
investment plans are to be scaled down at best, even light rail schemes. All
in all, we're back to the post-1948 area, with short-sighted, heavily
red-taped management of Britain's Railways from HM Treasury... In view of
that, I'm afraid that London Bid for the Olympics 2012 is gonna be a
non-starter...
Best regards
Phil
Ulf Kutzner
> > Germany has places like Fulda-Rohrbach. ;-)
> >
> > (17 pairs of ICE, 2 pairs normal loco hauled,
>
> Which conventional services do actually run on Fulda-Rohrbach?
IIRC, one IC Hamburg <-> Alps and the overnighter Copenhagen <-> Munich,
at least partly.
Regards, ULF
-> mtre
Patrick Segalla
> That is simply not going to happen. A set of new reforms is to come into
> force in the next months. NR will absorb the SRA and the ORR,
According to the Latest DoT-White Paper, the ORR is to remain independent.
Regards Patrick