High speed trains

I still find it amazing that in an allegedly advanced country, we don't have a high speed trains like the TGV or AVE. It's such a great way to travel.
 
Not sure there's enough room for trains to accelerate to high speeds safely and stop at the next scheduled station. Enough too many f###wits already go through level crossings when they shouldn't and that's with 125MPH (max) that currently use the tracks.
 
I don't understand how they can afford all these high speed railways when the roads are like the surface of the moon. Also screw links to the north, who already have loads of motorways, what about the south west?? There isn't even a dual carriage way all the way to Exeter from the M3.

Also the A30 is a nightmare when you get as far as Cornwall, but then theyre still using horse and carts and stare at the moon in wonder down there ;)
 
Last edited:
Of course, the South East is best avoided, Mike! Too many Lungdungers already make it down here too. Used to be able to do St Albans to home in a touch under 2 hours but last time I did a similar trip it took closer to 4. Glad I was somewhere comfortable with a decent sound system!
 
Ricardodaforce said:
I still find it amazing that in an allegedly advanced country, we don't have a high speed trains like the TGV or AVE. It's such a great way to travel.
Click to expand...

We invented rail travel but both east and west coast lines haven't really changed in 100 years. It takes not that much less time to get to Euston to Glasgow than it did 40years ago. Ok HST and Pendilino have come but they only go 125mph (Pendilino can do 140mph) but signalling prevents it.

HS2 will only put us level with current main route networks operated abroad just now, when they ought to be looking at this.

Countries that came into rail travel later would have laid straighter routes, more modern signalling systems (in cab signalling etc)
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
Not sure there's enough room for trains to accelerate to high speeds safely and stop at the next scheduled station. Enough too many f###wits already go through level crossings when they shouldn't and that's with 125MPH (max) that currently use the tracks.
Click to expand...

Plenty of room, HST 125 gets up to a ton plus quite quickly as does class 390. Some west coast routes after Warrington there's no stops until Euston and on East coast some stop at no stations after York before terminating at Kings Cross.

A truly high speed network wouldn't have level crossings at all. Plus my view in people being hit at 125 is they'll die anyway and as you cannot be any more dead than dead it matters not if they're hit at 300
 
The Maglev from Shanghai airport into Pudong is a ridiculously quick, yet smooth experience
 
But isn't it cheating a bit as that particular train uses magnetic levitation rather than good ol' fashioned flanged wheels and railway tracks? :D ;) :naughty:
 
Ian D J said:
But isn't it cheating a bit as that particular train uses magnetic levitation rather than good ol' fashioned flanged wheels and railway tracks? :D ;) :naughty:
Click to expand...

I thought putting steel wheels and tracks for HS2 is actually cheating the taxpayer and robbing the budget. This will look so last century in 2030. They'd better spend the money on broadband and mobile masts in rural areas.
 
The high speed service in Kent is a complete joke, because only the top 10% can afford to use it, whilst the rest of the South Eastern commuters subsidise it.
As for the rest of the shower of s***e in Kent, the local lines to London are probably slower than in Charles Dickens times. When I worked in the City, I could cycle the 30 miles home quicker than the train journey (2 trains 1hr 30m).
A decent high speed service would use different, bespoke tracks - no crossings - and limited stops. In other countries (France for instance) they cover greater distances, so can maintain higher speeds, and the whole network is tailored to fit in with them. The high speed services in other countries are also affordable.
 
I will have a tiny rant now.

The only reason we need HS2 is because no bloody airline flys from the North of England to London City airport

Rant over.

I wanted to fly down last week and found there are VERY few internal flight to London city.

A good point has been eluded to over high speed trains, every city want it to come to them, sorry but if it stops all the time it won't be high speed.
 
Last edited:
andy700 said:
The high speed services in other countries are also affordable.
Click to expand...

Paris to Marseille is very quick for the distances, but it is anything but cheap. 100 euros or something like that one way. Or maybe that is cheap compared to some rip off UK fares like Manchester to London before 10AM.

acetone said:
I will have a tiny rant now.

The only reason we need HS2 is because no bloody airline flys from the North of England to London City airport

Rant over.

I wanted to fly down last week and found there are VERY few internal flight to London city.

A good point has been eluded to over high speed trains, every city want it to come to them, sorry but if it stops all the time it won't be high speed.
Click to expand...
Get a helicopter. That's how all cool businessmen travel.
 
Something for nothing.
People always want something for nothing.
 
daugirdas said:
Paris to Marseille is very quick for the distances, but it is anything but cheap. 100 euros or something like that one way. Or maybe that is cheap compared to some rip off UK fares like Manchester to London before 10AM.
Click to expand...

In my experience, limited to AVE, it's more akin to flying than a train journey though. And I think they should be seen as an alternative to an internal flight as opposed to a regular train.
 
andy700 said:
The high speed service in Kent is a complete joke, because only the top 10% can afford to use it, whilst the rest of the South Eastern commuters subsidise it.
As for the rest of the shower of s***e in Kent, the local lines to London are probably slower than in Charles Dickens times. When I worked in the City, I could cycle the 30 miles home quicker than the train journey (2 trains 1hr 30m).
A decent high speed service would use different, bespoke tracks - no crossings - and limited stops. In other countries (France for instance) they cover greater distances, so can maintain higher speeds, and the whole network is tailored to fit in with them. The high speed services in other countries are also affordable.
Click to expand...

It fascinates me that in all the business cases for HS2 (and now HS3), they never seem to look at HS1 and ask "did it work?".

Anybody who thinks a high speed train is all that is needed to reinvigorate the north/midlands should probably take a good hard look at how it has affected say Folkestone. Not a lot, TBH, and much of that not for the better.
 
Nod said:
Not sure there's enough room for trains to accelerate to high speeds safely and stop at the next scheduled station. Enough too many f###wits already go through level crossings when they shouldn't and that's with 125MPH (max) that currently use the tracks.
Click to expand...

There would be no level crossings on ultra high speed routes.
 
Presumably the lines will also be in people proof corridors so they're completely suicide (and vandal) proof?
 
Nod said:
Presumably the lines will also be in people proof corridors so they're completely suicide (and vandal) proof?
Click to expand...

Do they need to be?
daugirdas said:
Paris to Marseille is very quick for the distances, but it is anything but cheap. 100 euros or something like that one way. Or maybe that is cheap compared to some rip off UK fares like Manchester to London before 10AM.
Click to expand...

For the distance travelled, that is bloody cheap. Try travelling Glasgow to Euston without prebooking on a site like the trainline.

Re flying within the UK. Due to security, aiport locations door to door times aren't that good. Trains go to the heart of a city and save a lot of time. If I were to go to London from Glasgow by flying, I'd have to take bus/taxi to airport, checkin, fly, land, train/bus/taxi to destination. Add all that up and you are at the same time as a high speed train, for a lot more agro.
 
Unfortunately, yes they do. People seem to use the slow trains as a means to their end so will use any higher speed ones in the same way if they can.

How long will it be before somebody causes the necessity for tighter security checks on trains? When we go up to Edinburgh, we fly. 10-15 minutes each end in a taxi and waste the time at the airport by grabbing a bite to eat and a coffee. Far less time in an uncomfortable seat and less likelihood of the seat being chewing gum infested...
 
daugirdas said:
Paris to Marseille is very quick for the distances, but it is anything but cheap. 100 euros or something like that one way. Or maybe that is cheap compared to some rip off UK fares like Manchester to London before 10AM.
Click to expand...


Google says that's 776km (500ish miles) for your €100 (£80 or so) - let's call it 16p per mile. Meanwhile, here in the UK, using HS1 (our flagship train), Canterbury to London is £64.70. That's for a journey of roughly 63 miles. Or £1 per mile. It takes a minimum of 55 mins though often as much as 1h20 (via high speed - slower and cheaper on the other trains). A coach takes 1h 40 for less than 1/4 of the cost.

It's significantly cheaper for me to drive to London, pay congestion charge and London rates parking than it is to get the train. There's something very wrong there.
 
ST4 said:
Do they need to be?


For the distance travelled, that is bloody cheap. Try travelling Glasgow to Euston without prebooking on a site like the trainline.
Click to expand...

Yip, agreed. We have to connect with the same trains in Carlisle. Regular fares are ridiculous.

Re flying within the UK. Due to security, aiport locations door to door times aren't that good. Trains go to the heart of a city and save a lot of time. If I were to go to London from Glasgow by flying, I'd have to take bus/taxi to airport, checkin, fly, land, train/bus/taxi to destination. Add all that up and you are at the same time as a high speed train, for a lot more agro.
Click to expand...

That's if you live in Glasgow or Edinburgh too. The journey to either city and airport, which is a schlep, adds another 1.5 hours or more. It's actually quicker to take the train which arrives at Euston, even though it involves a change in Carlisle.
 
JonathanRyan said:
It's significantly cheaper for me to drive to London, pay congestion charge and London rates parking than it is to get the train. There's something very wrong there.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there is. One, the journey by train is faster and easier on you as you can sit and relax without the hassle of driving. The train might be seen as the premium option. The cost of drving is also very dependent on the manner of which you drive, the car you drive etc. I'm quite happy for the bulk of occasion for driving to be cheaper actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top