High Speed and Fast Rail

[Gazza]

I like it although how many platforms are you thinking?

I was envisaging stacking platforms, so maybe 2 island platforms, one above the other?

[Stillwater]

Maybe worthwhile checking out the flood situation and whether the pylons required to support the 'river terminal' concept would impede flow or be subject to safety concerns, say from logs hitting the pylons in a flood situation.

[O_128]

This is the tradeoff between putting the station at the airport versus in the CBD.....
If its in the CBD, you impose an extra 25 minutes of travel for those bound for the airport.
If its at the Airport, you impose an extra 25 minutes of travel for those bound for the CBD.

I'm sure there are merits either way. We come to different answers because we value different things. My thinking is the resumptions and the potential for freight access. I also think the riverside expressway and the area beneath it is a complete eyesore that I would not want visitors seeing. Then there is the issue of the high density buildings on either side of the Captain Cook Bridge and the visual aspect of the elevated HSR link. CRR via bridge got rejected in favour of a tunnel; one of the reasons (out of many) was visual impact on the river and city views. I would think a HSR would have a similar impact, unless a really creative way were found to make it look acceptable (this is not impossible).

Is this the same concept on SSC, i quite like the idea of an aznac style bridge parallel to the captain cook bridge

[Gazza]

Maybe worthwhile checking out the flood situation and whether the pylons required to support the 'river terminal' concept would impede flow or be subject to safety concerns, say from logs hitting the pylons in a flood situation

The express way survives right?

Is this the same concept on SSC, i quite like the idea of an aznac style bridge parallel to the captain cook bridge

Could be any type of bridge really....Basically, as much of a landmark as the Kurilpa Bridge, but nicer looking.

[somebody]

The express way survives right?

Not proven AIUI.  Wasn't it built after the 74 flood!

You would hope so though.

[O_128]

The express way survives right?

Not proven AIUI.  Wasn't it built after the 74 flood!

You would hope so though.

actually it was built during the flood, there are some pics of it under construction, shame it wasnt destroyed 

[frereOP]

As for the Brisbane station location?  Around the world, these tend to be outside the traditional CBD area.

Only where existing infrasturcture is used.  Shinkansen uses deicated HSR lines built exclusively from scratch so these tend to be built right into the CBD (eg Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka and Fukuoka).  In Europe they tend to make use of existing rail infrastructure with stations on the fringes of the CBD (Kings Cross-St Pancras, Gare du Norde).

The location of the Brisbane station will not be decided by what people think is a good idea (airport, city, 'burbs), it will be built where it is most appropriate for the needs of the people who will be using it after extensive market surveys and considering the practicalities of location.  Not everyone will be going to the CBD (but it seems the most sensible to me).

Retrofitting HSR to existing rail is done extensively in Europe with ICE, TGV, Virgin and EuroStar running on shared low speed lines into and out of cities to existing stations (eg Paris, Strasborg) and where dedicated HSR lines have not yet been built (London (Euston station) to Crewe en rute to Glasgow, Strasborg to Zurich, Basel to Interlaken, Dresden to Berlin).  The new London Glasgow HS line is used by both HS passenger (Virgin) Pendalino trains and conventional rail traffic including freight and steam as seen on an episode of "Top Gear".

The obvious Brisbane station would be Roma St using the existing Gold Coast and Caboolture lines to exit the city before diverting to a dedicated HSR line up/down the coast.  Roma St would be an enroute station with the terminus being up on the Sunshine Coast as suggested.  There is no need to believe Roma St has to be the terminus with massive reconstruction.

What you don't want is an HSR becoming a commuter service within a city (eg with stops at Beenleigh, City, Airport and Caboolture en route to Maroochydore or Noosa) because the secret to HSR is not the top speed, but the average speed.  Although this happens in Europe with Virgin Rail stopping at Watford junction just 10 mins from Euston terminus and ICE stopping at Spandau just 10mins outside Berlin, stops for stations is what makes the difference eg Paris to Strasborg is 600km non-stop in 2.5h including the final 30mins over the existing low speed line.  Top speed, 310kph and average speed 240kph.

[ozbob]

From the International Railway Journal click here!

China to attempt new world speed record

China to attempt new world speed record
Wednesday, December 08, 2010

IRJ at 7th UIC High Speed Congress, Beijing: China will next year attempt to break the world rail speed record currently held by France, according to a report in the China Daily.

The attempt will be made using an experimental train being built by CSR. A CHR380A train, also CSR-built, set a new Chinese record of 486.1km/h on December 3. This is the highest speed ever attained by an unmodified production train.

The current record of 574.8km/h was set by the V150 test train on TGV Est on April 4 2007, smashing the previous record of 515.3km/h, which was also achieved in France 17 years earlier. If successful China will become the first Asian country to hold the title since Japan lost the record to France in 1981.

The production version of the CRH380, the CRH380B, train reached 357km/h on December 5 during test running on the completed section of the Beijing - Shanghai high-speed line. The first 11 production trains are due to roll out of CNR's Tangshan plant later this month.

CNR is supplying a fleet of 70 16-car trains. CRH380B has a design speed of 400km/h, an operating speed of 350km/h, and a maximum output of 18.4MW with half the cars powered.

The train has a new interior design and four classes: sightseeing, grand, first and second, plus a dining car. Each train seats 1026 passengers.

CRH380B has improved aerodynamics by enclosing the inter-car bellows with rubber pieces and enclosing the bogies more than on CRH3.

[ozbob]

From Business Recorder click here!

Spain overtakes France as Europe's high-speed rail leader

Spain overtakes France as Europe's high-speed rail leader

MADRID  (December 17, 2010) : Spain will hurtle past France as Europe's high speed rail leader on Sunday when it opens a 6.6-billion-euro line from Madrid to Valencia, banking on a boost to the economy. The 438-kilometre (272-mile) route will slash travel time between the Spanish capital and the Mediterranean port of Valencia, Spain's third-biggest city, from four hours to just 90 minutes.

The project, built at a cost of 6.6 billion euros (8.8 billion dollars), brings Spain's high-speed rail network to 2,056 kilometres. It places Spain ahead of the 1,896 kilometres of high speed rail in France and 1,285 kilometres in Germany, home to Siemens, the world's largest manufacturer of high-speed trains. Spain's high-speed train service, known as Alta Velocidad Espanola (AVE), boasts trains with noses shaped like a duck-billed platypus moving at speeds of up to 300 kph (190 mph).

And it is set to grow further. Taking into account routes planned or under construction, Spain would be in second place globally with 5,525 kilometres of high speed rail tracks, behind China the world leader with 13,134 kilometres but ahead of pioneer Japan with 3,625 kilometres.

By 2020 Spain wants to have 90 percent of the population within 50 kilometres of a high-speed rail station. "The AVE is very expensive. But it is an investment that generates many jobs and constributes to stimulate the economy, which is good at a time of crisis," said the director general for travellers at state-owned rail network Renfe. The Spanish economy slumped into recession in late 2008 due to the collapse of a property bubble that has caused the unemployment rate to soar to 20 percent, the highest in the euro zone.

It posted zero percent economic growth in the third quarter. The new Madrid-Valencia line will create 136,000 jobs directly and indirectly, according to consulting firm Accenture. But with a population of 47 million people, Spain has fewer potential passengers than France and Spain for its high-speed trains. Spain's bet on high-speed rail is "the other face of the property bubble" which fuelled economic growth in Spain for over a decade before it burst, said Ramon Lopez de Lucio, a professor at the Architecture School of Madrid. "That a country like Spain has more kilometres of AVE than any other nation aside from China makes no sense," he said, arguing that the Spanish government was over investing in infrastructure.

[ozbob]

From the Railway Gazette click here!

California picks first high speed section

California picks first high speed section
02 December 2010

USA: California High Speed Rail Authority has selected the first section of its planned high speed network to be built, although the choice immediately drew criticism as 'a line to nowhere'. The initial section will run for approximately 105 km through a rural part of the San Joaquin Valley from near Madera south to Corcoran, with stations at Fresno and Hanford.

Construction is expected to start in 2012 at an estimated cost of $4·15bn. The line would be connected at both ends to existing tracks used by Amtrak, allowing the segment to be operated by conventional trains until further sections have been built. It had been hoped that the initial section might connect Fresno with Bakersfield, the two largest cities in the San Joaquin Valley, but the authority said it did not have sufficient funds to complete such a long stretch.

Lack of money was given as one of the reasons to start building in a rural area as opposed to the more expensive urban sections around San Francisco and Los Angeles; only half the 80 km San Francisco – San Jose section could have been completed with the $4·3bn currently available from state and federal sources. The decision was further influenced by a stipulation with the latest $715m federal grant that the first section must be in the Central Valley.

'The decision before the Authority is an important one, but we should all remember that this project is a marathon, not a single stride', said CEO Roelof van Ark. 'It's about the finish line – building the nation's first true high-speed rail system, connecting California's great cities the entire distance between them. Starting here gives us flexibility to build in either direction – north and west to the Bay Area or south to Los Angeles – as more federal dollars become available.'

Van Ark suggested that if the federal funding allocated to states that are now rejecting high speed rail projects were re-directed to California, the line could immediately be extended to Bakersfield. However, building short sections instead of links between major conurbations could reduce political support for the project. The authority's business model and ridership estimates have already been attacked by audits conducted by the state government.

[ozbob]

NPR --> States Moving Ahead With High-Speed-Rail Projects

[frereOP]

NPR --> States Moving Ahead With High-Speed-Rail Projects

Its interesting that the incoming Governor of Florida ia cautios about the "cost of building it" and making sure the taxpayers don't end up footing the bill.

How backward and ill informed is this?  The real question should be "What is the cost of NOT building it?".  Not building infrastructure simply transfers costs to the people who would otherwise have benefited.

I find it bizarre that people would rather have lower electricity bills, lower water bills, lower car registrations and lower public transport fares when these costs are incurred by building infrastructure that will prevent electricity blackouts, water shortages and congestion.  There is a far bigger cost to taxpayers in the long run by not building the infrastructure, but in the short term, the costs are hidden (until the infrastructure doesn't meet needs) and they are politically easier to handle by voter-wary governments.

[#Metro]

My understanding is this is being done by government grants, so the state is going to get it effectively free anyway.
Usually in financial analysis, they compare to a "base case scenario" which is often, but not always, a "do nothing"
scenario.

Personally I feel the billions that this project would entail would be better spent rolling out improved infrastructure on the home front- things like cross river rail, more buses, light rail, BRT etc.

There is an element of "everyone is doing it, let's do it too".
I'm wary of this "copy Paris" approach. A lot of good could be done on the home front with that kind of money. Its seems only recently that the Federal Government is spending $$$ on local transportation projects such as Gold Coast Light Rail, Cross River Rail and Kippa-Ring.

[Stillwater]

It is folly to consider grant money from the federal government as somehow being 'free', because the temptation is to spend it on projects that are not worthwhile, or to spend in a reckless manner, as was the case recently in some states administering the Building the Education Revolution money.  Mind you, the federal government can waste money too.  The so-called 'pink batts' program is a case in point.

Federal government money comes from us (income tax), state government money comes from us (stamp duty), council money comes from us (rates).

The former Howard Liberal government had a policy position that public transport was a matter for states and councils to fund.  However, to its credit, it did invest considerable sums in interstate rail.  It also invested in interstate highways (Pacific Highway, for example) using the Constitutional authority that allows the Commonwealth to facilitate interstate trade and commerce.  It cannot favour one state over another.

It is interesting that the Australian Constitution makes specific reference to rail and states' protection of their rail systems. WA's price for joining the Federation was construction of the trans-continental railway.   In hindsight, it was shortsighted that states other than Tasmania and South Australia, declined Gough Whitlam's offer  of a federal takeover of state rail systems.  We would now have a unified national railway network.
The lines of responsibility are blurred.  Whever that occurs in government (health being a good example), there is a tendency to shift blame from one level of government to another.  The feds have done some good things with their funding, however, and in areas of urban rail.

Brisbane's passenger rail network was electrified using federal funding, extra tunnels were drilled beneath the city using federal money, track extensions or duplications to Beenleigh and Caboolture were built using federal money.  When states and councils showed little interest in funding bicycle paths, the feds funded a pilot program to show their worth.  People then began lobbying states for more paths.  The paths remained a state/council responsibility.  Bicycle paths are a routine inclusion in any federally-funded highway or motorway in an urban area.  They fund those.

Now, returning to theme, the Gillard Labor government has a policy position that the federal government should have  a role to play in funding urban transport infrastructure (Gold Coast Light Rail, Kippa-Ring).  Too often when the federal government has put money into one area of government, the states have quietly withdrawn their funding.  That's why the feds usually strike a deal now that 'ties' continued state funding to projects it also funds.

Until recently, the feds funded 100 per cent the major interstate highways through cities.  The incentive was for the states to simply funnel all their city traffic onto the major highways that the federal government funded (even though that may not have been the best solution or use of TAXPAYER funds), because they were able to shift the debt.  The politics then kicked in.  'We can't do this until the feds give us more money'.

Let's ask ourselves this: If the federal government had a spare $100 billion sitting around, is the best use of that money a high speed interstate railway down the east coast, relieving the pressures on the interstate highway and possible doing away with the need for a second Sydney Airport ($17 billion cost), or on a host of minor improvements (passing loops, track straightening, dedicated freight track bypassing Ipswich, Beerburrum-Landsborough duplication etc).  Maybe its better spent on hospitals!  That's why cost-benefit analysis is so important.  The scale is grander, but it is the same as you and I choosing a tin of
baked beans at the supermarket.  Do I buy this brand or that, this size or that one?  What value do I get for my money.  In the case of transport, it is OUR money.

It is no use, in Queensland's case, having the fastest train in the Southern Hemisphere, when the track it runs on belongs to the steam age.  I suspect that one of the delays in track duplication of the Sunshine Coast Line is that a public servant team has been tasked with working out how the feds can be made to fund some of the cost (as it should), and not have the state fund it 100 per cent.  And another team of pen-pushers is asking the question: 'If we do that, will it cruel our chances of getting fed money for CRR?'  As it is, the only substantial government investment in CRR (planning only) is the federal government.  The state does the planning.  Until they know the scope of works and costs, the feds are holding off committing funds to construction.  And that is wise.

Nothing in this world is free.

[Stillwater]

And, if you were a federal government looking to where you could invest taxpayer money wisely around the states of Australia, would you hand over dollars to a state that wasted hundreds of millions on a dam never built, or does this:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/state-governmnet-drops-zerogen-project-after-taxpayers-pump-150-million-into-the-plan/story-e6freoof-1225973217568

[#Metro]

"Clean coal" Ha ha! What were they thinking?
The Courier Mail et. al hasn't woken up to the other one - "Car rapid transit"

It is folly to consider grant money from the federal government as somehow being 'free', because the temptation is to spend it on projects that are not worthwhile, or to spend in a reckless manner, as was the case recently in some states administering the Building the Education Revolution money.  Mind you, the federal government can waste money too.  The so-called 'pink batts' program is a case in point.

I was refering to the US States here. US Federal Gov is covering most of the $$$, so it doesn't seem to make sense for them to knock back the offer.

The former Howard Liberal government had a policy position that public transport was a matter for states and councils to fund.  However, to its credit, it did invest considerable sums in interstate rail.  It also invested in interstate highways (Pacific Highway, for example) using the Constitutional authority that allows the Commonwealth to facilitate interstate trade and commerce.  It cannot favour one state over another.

I think cost-sharing is the way to go. Infrastructure Australia has a competitive scheme which scrutinies proposals, and also having costs fall on all parties concerned makes sure that efficiencies are found and that wastage is kept down. Its part of the reason why so much effort is going into CRR1 planning and design.

I have some questions with Infrastructure Australia.
For instance, would IA be able to part-fund things like a major signal upgrade of the rail network?

I'm skeptical about high speed trains. The price of a second Sydney Airport ($17 billion) seems excessively high, but my question is whether that price could be taken care of by the private sector.

And even if a second Sydney Airport cost $17 billion, that money is not lost, it is converted into an asset which has a future sale value. Other Australian airports have had leases over them sold. Sydney is a big city, and other international cities of a similar status would have multiple full-service Airports, of course, linked by very good rail links.

I think the guiding principle should be what is in the "national interest". While there is no consistent definition of this slippery term, Australia's capital cities really are the engine room for the nation's economy. If people cannot get to work on time, then the nation's economy suffers. Just look at any city which has a public transport strike. The cost of PT not working for 1 day can easily reach into the multi-millions of dollars.

CBA is a useful tool but not the only tool for evaluation, but it must be used with precaution. It is only as good as the underlying assumptions incorporated into the model are. CBAs for roads, for example, have been criticized over "travel time savings" because traffic induction eats those "benefits" up but it seems many models don't take this into account. Kippa-Ring rail was also shot down over CBA because "it would be too costly to operate trains on that line" but now, suddenly post-election, it is viable. Other, independent, methods should be used to support these things.

CBA cannot be used to make decisions for people. It can only be used to clarify a decision that someone would want to make. Political considerations and the acceptability of things to the public also matter. Here is a nice example:

http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Ack_UK_CBAcritique.pdf

What, for example, is it worth to protect whales from extinction?

An American survey, some years ago, estimated that the US population would pay $18 billion to protect the existence of humpback whales. The corresponding global willingness to pay would of course be a larger number, several times this amount.

But a moment's thought shows that any such number contains no real information. Imagine a multibillionaire who offers to pay twice the stated value -- $36 billion for the US alone, proportionally more for the world as a whole -- for the right to hunt and kill all the humpback whales in the ocean. It is immediately clear that the offer is unacceptable, and the price doesn't matter.

[#Metro]

Multi-criteria assessment is being used more and more:
http://iatools.jrc.ec.europa.eu/public/IQTool/MCA/DTLR_MCA_manual.pdf

[ozbob]

China's High-Speed Rail (TIme photo essay) --> http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2009451_2173866,00.html

[ButFli]

It is very interesting to see the 3-3 seating. Unlike any train I have seen before! More like a plane than a train.

Are these Chinese trains wider than a normal train, or are the seats significantly narrower?

[somebody]

It is very interesting to see the 3-3 seating. Unlike any train I have seen before! More like a plane than a train.

The 12th photo shows 2+3 seating.  That is the majority of CityRail (older interurbans, V sets, have 2+2) and IIRC V/Line has 2+3 on its older trains.  Not sure about the newer ones.

[mufreight]

No they wouldn't. Airtrain doesn't get their profits takign passengers from the Gold Coast to BNE. They get it from taking passengers to BNE. Yes the patronage would drop as GC customers  would probably use the HSR (although maybe not, as it would have its own exorbitant price) but thats most certainly not their only market.

Wrong
At this time Airtrain still is paid a surcharge for the entire journey which has been a point of contention since the introduction of the service, a surcharge that can be avoided by braking the journey either in the CBD or at Eagle Junction and touching off then touching back on to continue the journey.

[ButFli]

No they wouldn't. Airtrain doesn't get their profits takign passengers from the Gold Coast to BNE. They get it from taking passengers to BNE. Yes the patronage would drop as GC customers  would probably use the HSR (although maybe not, as it would have its own exorbitant price) but thats most certainly not their only market.

Wrong
At this time Airtrain still is paid a surcharge for the entire journey which has been a point of contention since the introduction of the service, a surcharge that can be avoided by braking the journey either in the CBD or at Eagle Junction and touching off then touching back on to continue the journey.

Are you sure the extra goes to Airtrain? I thought the anomaly was caused by Airtrain tickets still being charged on the old ticketing system that is based on the number of stations passed. So an Airtrain fare is the Airtrain fee from the city to the airport, plus whatever the old fare system fare was to the city. If you break your trip in the CBD you pay the Translink zone fare to the city then the Airtain fee from there to the airport. I guess what I am asking is are you sure that Airtrain is getting anything more than their Airtain fee from the city?

[ozbob]

Yes, Airtrain does.  Been confirmed by publicly by TransLink a number of times.  The good news is though we expect the fare anomaly to be fixed up early next year.  Easily avoided by breaking journey.

Meanwhile, Transport Minister Rachel Nolan told brisbanetimes.com.au yesterday that commuters would have to wait until the "first quarter" of 2011 until the fare problems between Airtrain and Translink were resolved.

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4433.msg36558#msg36558

[frereOP]

It is very interesting to see the 3-3 seating. Unlike any train I have seen before! More like a plane than a train.

Are these Chinese trains wider than a normal train, or are the seats significantly narrower?

Shinkansen has 3 x 3 in cattle class.  When I traveled on Shinkansen years ago the seat backs could be positioned to either side of the seat (using the same method as the older pre-Tangara double-decker suburban trains in Sydney) so passengers always faced the front.

[ozbob]

http://www.ara.net.au/site/hsr.php

http://www.youtube.com/v/8ONzbPTgzpI

High Speed Rail
Not Some Day, Today!

The implementation of High Speed Rail (HSR) in Australia has been in political discussions for the past three decades; however, it is yet to become a reality.

Any HSR initiative will require more government vision with regard to sustainable national transport systems. Rising fuel prices, climate change, and increasing airport and road congestion are just some of the factors that support the implementation of more economic and greener modes of transport.

HSR is successfully running in Germany, France, Spain, Japan and China; and other nations such as Iran, UK, Morocco, Argentina and USA are quickly moving towards it.

There is enough evidence to support the case for HSR along the East Coast cities of Australia. A recently published pre-feasibility study by the CRC for Rail Innovation concluded that there have been many significant changes to at least nine key areas influencing demand and supply factors pertinent to an Australian HSR.

The Australasian Railway Association advocates for an in-depth study into a High Speed Rail system along the East Coast of Australia.

Both Federal and State Governments must be proactively responsible for our future transport demand, and we require firm commitment from all political parties to make this a reality.

[ozbob]

From the Railway Gazette click here!

Completion of Ankara - Konya high speed line is significant step

Completion of Ankara - Konya high speed line is significant step
24 December 2010.

TURKEY: The first passenger train on TCDD's new Ankara - Konya high speed line ran on December 17, marking another significant step in the country's rail development. International Affairs Director Ibrahim Ceslik says revenue services are expected to begin in early 2011, following the formal completion of the line at the end of 2010.

Ankara - Konya is the country's second line built for 250 km/h operation, following the opening of the Ankara - Eskisehir route in March 2009. Ceslik reports that construction of the new line between Eskisehir and Istanbul is around 50% complete. To the east of the capital, work on the first section of the direct line to Sivas is 30% complete; major structures such as tunnels and viaducts are taking shape, but installation of the railway superstructure has yet to begin.

At present TCDD only has 10 CAF-built 250 km/h trainsets acquired to operate the Ankara - Eskisehir route. More trains will be needed as the high speed network expands, and Ceslink said the operator was drawing up plans to order up to 48 additional trainsets.

The Turkish government has formally adopted a national railway development programme which will add 14503 km of new line in time for the centenary of the republic in 2023, at an estimated cost of US$45bn. A further 2434 km will follow by 2035, expanding the network from 11008 to 27947 route-km in 25 years. Of this, there will be 11998 km designed for operation at 250 km/h and above. The intention is that this will raise rail's market share to 15% in the passenger sector and 20% for freight.

Meanwhile, plans are taking shape for 30 new stations to serve the cities on the emerging high speed network, as part of an urban renewal programme. First will be the new station in Ankara, which is to be developed through a PPP concession. Tender documents are now being prepared, and TCDD expects to invite tenders in early 2011.

[frereOP]

For those who have travelled on HSR, which train sets are the best looking?


Eurostar


TGV


ICE


My vote would be for German ICE trains.  They look wickedly sleek from the outside and are very modern, airy and light inside, although it's been many years since I travelled on Shinkansen and don't know what they are like now.

[ozbob]

They all neat to me ...  meanwhile ...

Brisbanetimes --> Europe's new king of high-speed train travel

[O_128]

Im going on the eurostar in 3 weeks so ill hopefully get some pics 

[Golliwog]

Eurostar is pretty good. Haven't been on any of the others. Just a point though, not all the Eurostar is set up like that, the first time I was on it we were put in a 2-2 seating arrangement, although the 2nd time I was put in the 1-2 arrangment shown.

[WTN]

Eurostar is pretty good. Haven't been on any of the others. Just a point though, not all the Eurostar is set up like that, the first time I was on it we were put in a 2-2 seating arrangement, although the 2nd time I was put in the 1-2 arrangment shown.

Were the seats as comfy as the ones shown above (all very nice)?

[frereOP]

These are all 1st class seats but you can see the difference between the trains.  The Pendalino seats below are 2nd Class seats.  Still awesome.

The red Virgin Pendalino trains (London to Glasgow) also look awesome and scare the crap out of you when one comes past at 200kph and you are just a few meters away.  This happened to me at Watford junction Station as I was walking along the road to my son's house.

Pendalino

[Golliwog]

Eurostar is pretty good. Haven't been on any of the others. Just a point though, not all the Eurostar is set up like that, the first time I was on it we were put in a 2-2 seating arrangement, although the 2nd time I was put in the 1-2 arrangment shown.

Were the seats as comfy as the ones shown above (all very nice)?

From memory, the 2-2 seats are just as comfy, just a little more squeezed. Oh? The 1-2 arrangement is 1st class is it? Sweet. I got put in there during that Icelandic volcano incident, but didn't pay any extra.

[frereOP]

Eurostar is pretty good. Haven't been on any of the others. Just a point though, not all the Eurostar is set up like that, the first time I was on it we were put in a 2-2 seating arrangement, although the 2nd time I was put in the 1-2 arrangment shown.

Were the seats as comfy as the ones shown above (all very nice)?

Very.  Remember these can be longish trips.  Paris - Zurich (TGV 4.5h), Interlaken - Berlin (ICE 9h), London - Paris (Eurostar 2.5h) so they need to be reasonably comfortable.

For those who have seen "The Tourist"  (Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie) it gives a pretty good idea of what high speed train travel is like.  The train was likely to have been an Italian Frecciarossa.

[ozbob]

The Guardian  --> High-speed rail should not be all about Londoners

[ozbob]

Richmond Times-Dispatch --> Business groups back high-speed rail

[frereOP]

The Guardian  --> High-speed rail should not be all about Londoners

I don't understand this.  Euston (the southern terminus of the London Glasgow line) is the next tube station from Kings Cross- St Pancras (the London terminus of Eurostar).  Virgin Pendalinos hurtle through the north west suburbs of London at speeds of up to 200kph (even through stations like Watford Junction).  Connecting this line to HS1 means building a short tunnel from Euston to Kings-Cross-St Pancras.  Not a big deal I would have thought given the extensive tunnelling carried out to build the line that carries Eurostar from Kins Cross-St Pancras to the east of London.

[ozbob]

http://www.informa.com.au/conferences/transport/rail/high-speed-rail

High Speed Rail 2011

ARA High Speed Rail Conference , to be held on 9 August 2011 in Canberra , will explore the government's vision for the future of High Speed Rail in Australia, its economic impact and viability anf its role in responding to Australia's future transport needs.

[frereOP]

http://www.informa.com.au/conferences/transport/rail/high-speed-rail

High Speed Rail 2011

ARA High Speed Rail Conference , to be held on 9 August 2011 in Canberra , will explore the government's vision for the future of High Speed Rail in Australia, its economic impact and viability anf its role in responding to Australia's future transport needs.

Registration prices are exhorbitant!  $1,314.50 for a one day seminar is ridiculous then another $1,094.50 for a workshop.

Tell the organisers "the're dreamin'..."

[Stillwater]

'Australia's population is set to double in a few decades'?  It is about 22.5 million now and the credible projections are for 36 million by the middle of the century.  The ARA has contracted the organisation of this conference to a company that 'touts' the concept at a starting price that sometimes drops as the numbers fail to eventuate.  Note the agenda is being 'worked up', so it is fluid.  No doubt the invitation has gone out to a minister or two, and the chair of Infrastructure Australia to address the gathering.  Until these people come on board, the leading act is a Greens Senator from WA.  Who wants to pay the asking price to listen to him?  For those in the business, the cost of attending is a tax write-off.