St Pancras

[Penners]

Is 20 minutes off the time to Paris really worth this sort of money?

I have to agree that - viewed in isolation - a reduction of 20 mins in the rail journey between London and Paris hardly seems to warrant an expenditure of £800m.

But surely the picture is much bigger than that. The Waterloo terminus was south of the River Thames, which made it inaccessible to trains from north of the Thames. So for trains from all north-of-the-Thames locations to link up with Eurostar trains was at best inconvenient.

Now that we have the Eurostar terminus north of the Thames, with a high-speed rail tunnel under London and the Thames, trains from all over the country can offer quick, convenient links with Eurostar, and thus the European continent. (How's my travel brochure copywriting so far?)

If we are to prosper as a nation, we must take every opportunity to match or exceed the technological feats of our competitors. We must also ensure that our communications with our fellow European nations are fast and efficient.

After all, it's not just the journey time to Paris that's at stake here - it's travel from all parts of the Britain to all parts of Europe.

And when our European brethren arrive in London, we want their first experience of the city to be as breathtaking as possible. It's not just national pride, it's good business sense, too. Good first impressions are vital when you're dealing with customers.

Finally, we have to learn to shun the aeroplane. And the quicker and more convenient we make our trains, the better the chance we have of persuading both business people and tourists to do that.

If we can achieve all that and rescue an architectural masterpiece into the bargain, then I think that £800m starts to look much more like money well spent.

Well, for what it's worth, that's what I think, anyway.

 

[biffvernon]

Yep, trains are going to keep going when the solar/wind/tidal/wave generated electricity is cheaper than aviation fuel and the powers that be realize that what's left of the fossil fuels just has to be kept underground.

 

[Flyfisher]

Some good points there, Penners, making the original Waterloo decision seem badly shortsighted. But that's politics I guess.

But no matter how much is invested in railways, the aviation 'genie' is going to be very difficult to put back in the bottle (or should that be lamp?). The infrastructure needed for a Eurostar-class inter-city service throughout Europe is phenomenal. I accept that mainland Europe is way ahead of the UK in that respect, but even so, the costs (in money and emissions) are massive and result in a transport network far less flexible than the airlines, which only need a mile or so of runway at each end.

Also, London to Paris is a particular case where the train really can compete with the airlines because of the comparable times. But even with easier links to the north from St Pancras, the train loses out to the plane when comparing, say, Newcastle or Edinburgh to Paris. For better or for worse, today's world is all about speed of travel. Regular travellers want day trips to Europe, especially the business traveller, and while London to Paris by train is now eminently feasible, a day trip to, say, Milan or Rome requires a plane unless you're happy to take a two day scenic trip, which is fine for an annual holiday but of no use to regular travellers. It's a big problem.

Also, unless governments intervene in the currently free market for aviation (and who honestly thinks this is likely), the airlines are hardly going to sit back and let rising oil prices wreck their industry - they are going to seek alternatives to aviation fuel. Boeing is already doing this and Virgin Atlantic is planning a demonstration flight of one of their 747s on biofuel sometime next year - which would make flying greener than existing trains.

I don't know if we can 'R&D' our way out of the impending problems but I'm convinced that's the approach that will be tried. Anything else will be seen as a regression and I don't see that on any countries agenda right now.

 

[Nemesis]

Was Waterloo shortsighted though? It has worked OK, and the legacy is still there. The Grimshaw trainshed is a magnificent achievement, and can be adapted for use to expand the domestic rail network - south west in particular.

Newcastle to Paris - well, Newcastle airport is six miles west of Newcastle. I'd rather get the train. Far more convenient in fact for me.

Last time I was on the train from London the person sitting next to me told me she found it faster as far as London to Newcastle journeys go, for a number of reasons. She had given up flying. OK time in the air is shorter, but so much else as part of the overall journey isn't. And apart from that, Newcastle Central is rather a finer building than anything Ponteland has to offer.

I have a friend who works for BA who would rather get the train from London to Newcastle and back also.


Not everyone prefers air travel.

 

[Flyfisher]

Not everyone prefers air travel.

I'd be surprised if they did, although I suspect it depends on the journey. What about other international destinations from Newcastle?

But, either way, personal anecdotal examples are hardly a sound basis on which to form opinions about national behaviour. The phenomenal recent rise in air travel would seem to suggest that flying is eminently preferable to many people; enough to profitably support and entire industry anyway.

 

[Nemesis]

No, personal anecdote is not the same as research. I have never suggested it was.

However, there is simply no point, in my opinion, in my discussing this here with you, as I have said in the past.

If others wish to, that's up to them. The thread is open...

Personally, I'm delighted that St Pancras Station, one of the this country's technical marvels, and the hotel, both listed Grade I, have been restored. Presumably Nework Rail did the research and thought it worthwhile. I have always found the organisation very approachable, so if you wish to put it to NR that all this has been wasted and St Pancras and the extended Eurostar service was a monumental waste of cash, as air is the future, that is of course entirely your choice.

 

[Penners]

I suspect that - with leisure travellers anyway - part of the problem is mindset. People just think "abroad=flying". You're right, of course, that a journey to Rome, Prague or Barcelona is going to take much longer by train, but maybe we have to change our attitude to the journey.

After all, a flight means hours at airports, interspersed with views of sky. A train journey, with its ever-changing views of abroad, can be so much more interesting.

Of course, the above whistling-in-the-wind has no validity whatsoever for business travellers.

 

[Flyfisher]

Re:Nemesis
I am also delighted about the restoration of St Pancras, just as I'll be delighted if the East End of London really is revitalised by the Olympics. I just think it's a shame that such worthy projects can only, apparently, be justified on the back of huge unnecessary projects such as the Olympics or relocating a rail service.

As for Presumably Nework Rail did the research and thought it worthwhile, I don't doubt they did and, surprise surprise, managed to create a positive outcome for themselves - they are hardly independent though, are they?

Even ignoring the potential for bias, bad decisions leading to wasteful expenditure is hardly unknown - £1bn on a big tent on the Isle of Dogs anyone? I wonder how many restoration projects that would have funded?

Still, what's done is done. I appreciate that cynicism is not the most attractive trait but it's hard to avoid sometimes when our public institutions provide such a wealth of material in both deeds and behaviour.

Re: Penners
Having taken some wonderful train journeys around Switzerland, I agree with your sentiments; as part of a holiday they can be wonderful. But given that these options already exist, people make their own choices and air travel would seem to be more popular. It would also seem to be more flexible, generally faster and not constantly in need of government subsidy.

 

[Nemesis]

The tent and the Olympics are hardly comparable, nothing to do with internationally important historic buildings, and I suggest, as I said, you contact Network Rail (I believe a privatised company, Railtrack, until fairly recently) if you feel you have been had.

 

[Flyfisher]

The tent is an example, IMO, of wasteful expenditure despite, no doubt, wonderfully positive reports and studies 'proving' how beneficial it would be. The Olympics is an example of a massive project with the stated benefit of revitalising a run-down part of our capital city, as if revitalising it for it's own sake is not worthwhile. And Network Rail might be a privatised company but it receives huge public subsidies, as do most railway systems throughout the world.

 

[Nemesis]

I think you could do with some further research.

 

[Flyfisher]

Likewise.

 

[Nemesis]

Simply because I don't wish to bandy pointless words with you here as it will change nothing and instead suck up time which I would rather spend doing something of interest to me, and may actually change things in the real world, does not mean I am unaware of the issues involved.

If Penners and anyone else wishes to, that's entirely up to them.

 

[Flyfisher]

You've already said all that; seems pointless to repeat it. Still, nice of you to allow others to have a say if they wish :wink:

 

[Nemesis]

Well, take notice then.

:roll:

 

[Flyfisher]

Take notice of what? Posts are open to all. Just because you don't want to engage doesn't mean I shouldn't post - does it?

 

[Nemesis]

Not with me. As I have said - if others want to argue the toss, up to them.

:roll:

 

[Flyfisher]

That's the third time. You just can't resist having the last word can you? :wink:

 

[Nemesis]

Na na na na na.

 

[Penners]

If there's any more of this you'll both go to your rooms.

And there'll be no supper.