What gauge is the CTRL being built to?
If the need arose through incresed demand would a double deck TGV be
able to get into St Pancras when it is finished?

Tony
<DD TGV at Bezier http://tonyhunter2814.fotopic.net/p19717298.html >

> What gauge is the CTRL being built to?


Channel Tunnel to Ripple Lane - UIC C
Ripple Lane to St Pancras - UIC B+


> If the need arose through incresed demand would a double deck TGV be
> able to get into St Pancras when it is finished?


Yes, in theory, but TGVs would not be allowed through the Channel Tunnel 
without modifications.


-- 
Peter

"Peter Goodland" <petergoodland.at.hotmail.com> wrote:


>
>> What gauge is the CTRL being built to?
>
>Channel Tunnel to Ripple Lane - UIC C
>Ripple Lane to St Pancras - UIC B+
>
>> If the need arose through incresed demand would a double deck TGV be
>> able to get into St Pancras when it is finished?
>
>Yes, in theory, but TGVs would not be allowed through the Channel Tunnel 
>without modifications.



However, in practice, there is no reason why a double-deck design
could not be accomplished specially for Channel Tunnel use.

The Eurostar loadings would have to be much higher than at present for
a double deck design to be economically viable, but it would be
perfectly practicable.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 19:44:43 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>"Peter Goodland" <petergoodland.at.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> What gauge is the CTRL being built to?
>>
>>Channel Tunnel to Ripple Lane - UIC C
>>Ripple Lane to St Pancras - UIC B+
>>
>>> If the need arose through incresed demand would a double deck TGV be
>>> able to get into St Pancras when it is finished?
>>
>>Yes, in theory, but TGVs would not be allowed through the Channel Tunnel 
>>without modifications.
>
>
>However, in practice, there is no reason why a double-deck design
>could not be accomplished specially for Channel Tunnel use.
>
>The Eurostar loadings would have to be much higher than at present for
>a double deck design to be economically viable, but it would be
>perfectly practicable. 
>


Costwise, perhaps rather than needing an appreciable increase in
passenger numbers, a shorter D/Deck E*/ TGV might be cheaper to
purchase & operate?

DC

David C  wrote:


>On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 19:44:43 +0100, Tony   Polson 
>wrote:
>
>>"Peter Goodland" <petergoodland.at.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> What gauge is the CTRL being built to?
>>>
>>>Channel Tunnel to Ripple Lane - UIC C
>>>Ripple Lane to St Pancras - UIC B+
>>>
>>>> If the need arose through incresed demand would a double deck TGV be
>>>> able to get into St Pancras when it is finished?
>>>
>>>Yes, in theory, but TGVs would not be allowed through the Channel Tunnel 
>>>without modifications.
>>
>>
>>However, in practice, there is no reason why a double-deck design
>>could not be accomplished specially for Channel Tunnel use.
>>
>>The Eurostar loadings would have to be much higher than at present for
>>a double deck design to be economically viable, but it would be
>>perfectly practicable. 
>>
>
>Costwise, perhaps rather than needing an appreciable increase in
>passenger numbers, a shorter D/Deck E*/ TGV might be cheaper to
>purchase & operate?



The Eurostars have already been paid for so, in the absence of any
increase in passenger numbers, only the determinedly daft would buy
expensive brand new double deck trains to replace them.

And from next year, paths through the Tunnel need to be paid for
regardless of train length, so that means no saving there, either.

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 17:25:09 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>The Eurostars have already been paid for so, in the absence of any
>increase in passenger numbers, only the determinedly daft would buy
>expensive brand new double deck trains to replace them.


But they won't last for ever. ISTR I once saw an interview with a
Eurostar bigwig in one of the mags, where he claimed that double deck
might be considered for the next generation of Eurostar trains. Still,
I suppose he'll be long gone by then :-) 

I once asked the CTRL propaganda people about double deck, and they
claimed that there would be no technical (rather than
legal/political/regulatory) reasons they couldn't one day run TGV
Duplexes (Duplicies?) to St Pancras.

More to the point, can we have ICE3s to London...
 
-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis  wrote:


>But they won't last for ever. ISTR I once saw an interview with a
>Eurostar bigwig in one of the mags, where he claimed that double deck
>might be considered for the next generation of Eurostar trains. Still,
>I suppose he'll be long gone by then :-) 



They are all idiots anyway.  They conspicuously failed to make it pay
in spite of massive Government subsidy.  They were gifted the trains,
the stations and the paths through the Tunnel and they still couldn't
make it pay.

It will all come unstuck next year when Eurostar have to pay for each
path through the Tunnel, rather than the Governments picking up the
total tab, as now.

Arthur Figgis wrote:

>
> More to the point, can we have ICE3s to London...


DBAG have published their intention to run ICE's to London. I forecast
an ICE variant will get there before a TGV (other than Eurostar, of
course), despite the best attempts of the Belgians to prevent this from
happening.


-- 
Regards

Mike

Tony Polson wrote:


> They are all idiots anyway.  They conspicuously failed to make it pay
> in spite of massive Government subsidy.  They were gifted the trains,
> the stations and the paths through the Tunnel and they still couldn't
> make it pay.
>
> It will all come unstuck next year when Eurostar have to pay for each
> path through the Tunnel, rather than the Governments picking up the
> total tab, as now.


That's a bold and inaccurate statement in many ways. Thay have taken
over 60% market of the London/Paris route from the airlines. 5 years
ago BA had 6 flights per day to Paris, now they have 2. BMI, have
quartered their service to just 1 and easyjet have had similar
cutbacks. All have publicly said in one way or another that this is due
to E*. The story is the same on the Brussels route. Doesn't sound like
idiotic behaviour to me. Passenger numbers are increasing every
quarter, never mind every year.

Could you back up your arguement with some substantial facts on the
fact they couldn't "make it pay?"

"Mike Roebuck"  wrote:


>
>Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>
>> More to the point, can we have ICE3s to London...
>
>DBAG have published their intention to run ICE's to London. I forecast
>an ICE variant will get there before a TGV (other than Eurostar, of
>course), despite the best attempts of the Belgians to prevent this from
>happening.



Some competition for Eurostar can only be a good thing.  There must be
a *huge* market for services through the Tunnel to destinations other
than Calais, Lille, Paris and Bruxelles that is certainly not being
competently served, let alone exploited by Eurostar.

All Eurostar do is rest on their laurels, smugly congratulating
themselves on their Paris/Bruxelles market shares, ignoring the fact
that there is a huge opportunity going begging.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:23:36 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>"Mike Roebuck"  wrote:
>
>>
>>Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>
>>> More to the point, can we have ICE3s to London...
>>
>>DBAG have published their intention to run ICE's to London. I forecast
>>an ICE variant will get there before a TGV (other than Eurostar, of
>>course), despite the best attempts of the Belgians to prevent this from
>>happening.
>
>
>Some competition for Eurostar can only be a good thing.  There must be
>a *huge* market for services through the Tunnel to destinations other
>than Calais, Lille, Paris and Bruxelles that is certainly not being
>competently served, let alone exploited by Eurostar.
>
>All Eurostar do is rest on their laurels, smugly congratulating
>themselves on their Paris/Bruxelles market shares, ignoring the fact
>that there is a huge opportunity going begging.


Though it doesn't help that "connections" are often with Thalys, who
also try to play the ground-level airline game - running speed of a
train, inconvenience of flying. The advantage of ICEs to London would
be avoiding both Eurostar and Thalys. :-)

-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:07:41 +0100, Arthur Figgis
 wrote:


>Though it doesn't help that "connections" are often with Thalys, who
>also try to play the ground-level airline game - running speed of a
>train, inconvenience of flying. The advantage of ICEs to London would
>be avoiding both Eurostar and Thalys. :-)


The old D-Zug, and now the ICE International, are both very good ways
of avoiding the unpleasantries of Thalys.

But, yes, if there was a London-Germany direct service, I suspect I
would use it at least once, so long as the price was not excessive.

Perhaps if SNCB/NMBS still want out of the Eurostar consortium, the
Bruxelles service could be replaced by an extension of some of the ICE
Internationals to London?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"50bmg"  wrote:


>
>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> They are all idiots anyway.  They conspicuously failed to make it pay
>> in spite of massive Government subsidy.  They were gifted the trains,
>> the stations and the paths through the Tunnel and they still couldn't
>> make it pay.
>>
>> It will all come unstuck next year when Eurostar have to pay for each
>> path through the Tunnel, rather than the Governments picking up the
>> total tab, as now.
>
>That's a bold and inaccurate statement in many ways. Thay have taken
>over 60% market of the London/Paris route from the airlines. 5 years
>ago BA had 6 flights per day to Paris, now they have 2. BMI, have
>quartered their service to just 1 and easyjet have had similar
>cutbacks. All have publicly said in one way or another that this is due
>to E*. The story is the same on the Brussels route. Doesn't sound like
>idiotic behaviour to me. Passenger numbers are increasing every
>quarter, never mind every year.
>
>Could you back up your arguement with some substantial facts on the
>fact they couldn't "make it pay?"



Eurostar got their trains free (they were paid for by the Governments
of the UK, France and Belgium).  They get all their paths through the
Tunnel paid for (whether used or not) thanks to an agreement between
the thee Governments and Eurotunnel.  The Channel Tunnel Rail Link in
the UK plus the High Speed Lines in France and Belgium were built by
the respective Governments and offered to Eurostar at heavily
subsidised rates. 

On this basis, Eurostar should be massively profitable ...

.... but the group makes only a small operating profit, and there is no
financial return whatsoever on the capital cost of the trains and the
high speed lines.

Eurostar are quick to crow about their apparent success to Paris and
Bruxelles, but numbers are growing slowly and have actually reduced in
several quarters of the last 2-3 years.  Eurostar use only a fraction
of their allocated paths through the Tunnel because they have failed
to grow the market, settling instead for taking business off the
airlines - on the Paris/Bruxelles routes only.  

The rolling stock is under-utilised - a second build should have been
expected by now but there is no sign of that happening.  Eurostar seem
indifferent to passengers who want to travel to mainland European
destinations other than Paris and Bruxelles, offering only half
hearted connections into other services.  Yet there is no technical
reason why Eurostars could not be made to run beyond Paris and
Bruxelles on a regular basis, rather than just the half hearted
occasional services to Bourg St Maurice, Lyon and Marne la Vallee for
Disneyland Paris.

A company with real vision and determination would by now be running
trains from London to Koeln, Muenchen and Frankfurt in Germany,
Amsterdam in the Netherlands, Bern, Zurich, Geneva and Interlaken in
Switzerland, Toulouse, Lyon, Cannes and Marseille in France ... the
possibilities are endless, and I have listed only a tiny proportion of
them.  

Instead we have Paris and Bruxelles.  Bruxelles and Paris. That's it.

While Eurostar management sit on their collective fat arses and grin
smugly about their market share to Paris and Bruxelles, the rest of
the market goes begging, and Ryanair, Easyjet and the other low cost
airlines clean up.  Ryanair and Easyjet must be laughing all the way
to the bank, because Eurostar quite clearly doesn't give a damn.

You would think that the railway tracks in Europe didn't go anywhere
other than Paris and Bruxelles!  

This is no success story.  It is a massive opportunity lost.  Instead,
Eurostar complacency rules OK.

And it could be *so* different.

In message 
          Tony   Polson  wrote:

[snip]

> 
> The rolling stock is under-utilised - a second build should have been
> expected by now but there is no sign of that happening.  Eurostar seem
> indifferent to passengers who want to travel to mainland European
> destinations other than Paris and Bruxelles, offering only half
> hearted connections into other services.  Yet there is no technical
> reason why Eurostars could not be made to run beyond Paris and
> Bruxelles on a regular basis, rather than just the half hearted
> occasional services to Bourg St Maurice, Lyon and Marne la Vallee for
> Disneyland Paris.
> 
> A company with real vision and determination would by now be running
> trains from London to Koeln, Muenchen and Frankfurt in Germany,
> Amsterdam in the Netherlands, Bern, Zurich, Geneva and Interlaken in
> Switzerland, Toulouse, Lyon, Cannes and Marseille in France ... the
> possibilities are endless, and I have listed only a tiny proportion of
> them.  
> 


As usual, the subpostmaster (ex) completely ignores the inconvenient facts
that detract from his rant.  You won't get international servoces to all or
any of those places until we drop our 'Wogs start at Calais' attitudes and
drop all the ludicrous immigration and insecurity nonsense and allow the
trains to be run sensibly, including allowing cabotage.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:43:52 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:



>A company with real vision and determination would by now be running
>trains from London to Koeln, Muenchen and Frankfurt in Germany,
>Amsterdam in the Netherlands, Bern, Zurich, Geneva and Interlaken in
>Switzerland, Toulouse, Lyon, Cannes and Marseille in France ... the
>possibilities are endless, and I have listed only a tiny proportion of
>them.  


SNCF, Thalys and to a certain extent DB don't seem to be interested in
this market either, which could tell us something. When even the
people who sell tickets say "why not just fly?", the railways don't
seem to be grasping the market with both hands.

I don't think Eurostar are to blame for the entrenched British view
that treating a London - Brussels train like a Zagreb - Munich train
is treated would somehow lead to Britain being overun with rabid dogs,
German tanks and swan-devouring Albanian gypsies (or whatever).


>Instead we have Paris and Bruxelles.  Bruxelles and Paris. That's it.


Avignon, Disneyland and the Alps.

To go in to the Netherlands or Germany there is supposedly a problem
with finding somewhere to stick all the signalling equipment, but
hopefully that will reduce in the future.


-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis  wrote:


>SNCF, Thalys and to a certain extent DB don't seem to be interested in
>this market either, which could tell us something. When even the
>people who sell tickets say "why not just fly?", the railways don't
>seem to be grasping the market with both hands.


Earlier in the thread a statement was made that DBAG had made some
sort of commitment to explore the possibility of an ICE service to
London. I took that at face value.


>I don't think Eurostar are to blame for the entrenched British view
>that treating a London - Brussels train like a Zagreb - Munich train
>is treated would somehow lead to Britain being overun with rabid dogs,
>German tanks and swan-devouring Albanian gypsies (or whatever).


Don't forget bird flu.  ;-)


>>Instead we have Paris and Bruxelles.  Bruxelles and Paris. That's it.
>
>Avignon, Disneyland and the Alps.


I mentioned those services earlier in the thread.  They are hardly
significant, except perhaps to demonstrate just how half-hearted
Eurostar is.


>To go in to the Netherlands or Germany there is supposedly a problem
>with finding somewhere to stick all the signalling equipment, but
>hopefully that will reduce in the future.


If there's a will, ...

Unfortunately, there isn't.

;-)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:20:53 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>Arthur Figgis  wrote:
>
>>SNCF, Thalys and to a certain extent DB don't seem to be interested in
>>this market either, which could tell us something. When even the
>>people who sell tickets say "why not just fly?", the railways don't
>>seem to be grasping the market with both hands.
>
>Earlier in the thread a statement was made that DBAG had made some
>sort of commitment to explore the possibility of an ICE service to
>London. I took that at face value.


Depends how they go about it (cf Eurotunnel's commitment to
investigate a second Chunnel).
 


>>>Instead we have Paris and Bruxelles.  Bruxelles and Paris. That's it.
>>
>>Avignon, Disneyland and the Alps.
>
>I mentioned those services earlier in the thread.  They are hardly
>significant, except perhaps to demonstrate just how half-hearted
>Eurostar is.


Also that Johnny Foreigner doesn't really want a 400m long train
blocking up a "secure" part of his station, using his track capacity,
and filling his stations with x-ray machines and sealed-off platforms.


-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

In message , Arthur Figgis 
 writes

>To go in to the Netherlands or Germany there is supposedly a problem 
>with finding somewhere to stick all the signalling equipment, but 
>hopefully that will reduce in the future.

Aren't the Germans on 15kV at16 2/3Hz and the Dutch on something else 
stopping the trains going there anyway?
-- 
Clive

Tony Polson wrote:

> "50bmg"  wrote:
>
> On this basis, Eurostar should be massively profitable ...


You are looking at selected facts and producing a conclusion to fit
your argument. I am not convinced at all.


> The rolling stock is under-utilised - a second build should have been
> expected by now but there is no sign of that happening.  Eurostar seem
> indifferent to passengers who want to travel to mainland European
> destinations other than Paris and Bruxelles, offering only half
> hearted connections into other services.  Yet there is no technical
> reason why Eurostars could not be made to run beyond Paris and
> Bruxelles on a regular basis, rather than just the half hearted
> occasional services to Bourg St Maurice, Lyon and Marne la Vallee for
> Disneyland Paris.


Under-utilized?! OK, now I know you have no knowledge of this
evidently. I know otherwise. Thay run up miles similar to any TGV and
are maintained using the same standards. Consider the fleet size and
the ever expanding timetable. The only under-utilization will be when
GNER hands back the North of Londons whos future appears to be
uncertain. Regarding trains to some of those destinations you mentioned
- well I bet E* are glad you're not their CEO or you would have made
some terrible decisions. The ONLY reason the market has gone for a E*
majority is because they can compete directly with the airlines - and
for the majority of their weekday passengers being business - this
means TIME. The city centre to city centre times are quicker to Paris
and Brussels than using airport check-ins, and taxis - unless your
meeting is at CDG or LHR. Lyon et al, is just too far away - you hand
back the advantage to the airlines and then you really would make a
huge loss. Then their is set availability - there just aren't enough
trains to do this, especially given the extra distances.


> A company with real vision and determination would by now be running
> trains from London to Koeln, Muenchen and Frankfurt in Germany,
> Amsterdam in the Netherlands, Bern, Zurich, Geneva and Interlaken in
> Switzerland, Toulouse, Lyon, Cannes and Marseille in France ... the
> possibilities are endless, and I have listed only a tiny proportion of
> them.
>
> Instead we have Paris and Bruxelles.  Bruxelles and Paris. That's it.


Koeln and Amsterdam are possibilities, but do you really think it's
*that* easy for E* to do? You think they can just march in there and
set up as they please? The red tape is nearly endless. More governments
involved, more rail systems and signalling technology crammed into a
train that already has more than any other in the world. Timetabling
paths, and advertising.... Again, you obviously are one of those who
think everything is easy from where you sit.


> While Eurostar management sit on their collective fat arses and grin
> smugly about their market share to Paris and Bruxelles, the rest of
> the market goes begging, and Ryanair, Easyjet and the other low cost
> airlines clean up.  Ryanair and Easyjet must be laughing all the way
> to the bank, because Eurostar quite clearly doesn't give a damn.


Ryanair, BA and BMI have all LOST money on the London-Paris route in
the last 3 years. E* have GAINED money and passengers. I don't get how
their managers are laughing all the way to the bank. I think you'll
find they'll be tring to find a way to get passengers back in their
cramped seats, long check-ins and the hassle of baggage check-ins.
Considering there is no other train operation anywhere in thre world
with the operational complexities of E*, I think the fact that they are
turing a profit (something many rail companies only dream of), and
increasing their timetable to suit demand - and all only 10 years after
starting out is commendable.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 02:18:43 +0100 someone who may be Clive
 wrote this:-


>In message , Arthur Figgis 
> writes

>>To go in to the Netherlands or Germany there is supposedly a problem 
>>with finding somewhere to stick all the signalling equipment, but 
>>hopefully that will reduce in the future.

>Aren't the Germans on 15kV at16 2/3Hz

Yes.

>and the Dutch on something else


1500V DC IIRC. A new line was to be at 25kV AC, but there seemed to
be second thoughts on this a few months ago (it is not something I
follow too closely).


>stopping the trains going there anyway?


In these days of power electronics and three phase drives
multi-system trains are rather easier to arrange than they were in
ye olden days. There are a number of locomotives that can cope with
many systems for example.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"50bmg"  wrote:


>Ryanair, BA and BMI have all LOST money on the London-Paris route in
>the last 3 years. E* have GAINED money and passengers. I don't get how
>their managers are laughing all the way to the bank. I think you'll
>find they'll be tring to find a way to get passengers back in their
>cramped seats, long check-ins and the hassle of baggage check-ins.
>Considering there is no other train operation anywhere in thre world
>with the operational complexities of E*, I think the fact that they are
>turing a profit (something many rail companies only dream of), and
>increasing their timetable to suit demand - and all only 10 years after
>starting out is commendable.



You are obviously a fan, or have some other form of involvement that
has clouded your judgement.  

Eurostar is a flop.  It should have been so much more than it is, and
it isn't very good at what it does now.  Only one Eurostar route is
profitable - London to Paris - and Eurostar has made not the slightest
effort to expand beyond the two routes it was handed on a plate.

In the last ten years, Ryanair and other airlines have hugely expanded
the number of routes they offer to mainland Europe.  Meanwhile,
Eurostar still operates two routes, one slightly profitable, one not.

It's pathetic.  And as long as people like you believe that Eurostar
has actually achieved anything, that's how it will stay.  Pathetic.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:06:31 +0100 someone who may be Tony   Polson
 wrote this:-


>Eurostar is a flop.


I wouldn't go that far. However, it could indeed have been so much
better.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 09:55:04 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 02:18:43 +0100 someone who may be Clive
> wrote this:-
>
>>In message , Arthur Figgis 
>> writes
>
>>>To go in to the Netherlands or Germany there is supposedly a problem 
>>>with finding somewhere to stick all the signalling equipment, but 
>>>hopefully that will reduce in the future.
>
>>Aren't the Germans on 15kV at16 2/3Hz
>
>Yes.
>
>>and the Dutch on something else
>
>1500V DC IIRC. A new line was to be at 25kV AC, but there seemed to
>be second thoughts on this a few months ago (it is not something I
>follow too closely).


I believe the Betuwe Route freight line will still be 25 kV. Though
the operators in the Netherlands who might use it don't have 25kV
locos...


>>stopping the trains going there anyway?
>
>In these days of power electronics and three phase drives
>multi-system trains are rather easier to arrange than they were in
>ye olden days. There are a number of locomotives that can cope with
>many systems for example.


Like the ones in Woodhead :-)
-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

Tony Polson wrote:


>
> You are obviously a fan, or have some other form of involvement that
> has clouded your judgement.  >
> It's pathetic.


OK Tony, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I am a fan -
because E* allows me to attend the meetings I have to on both sides of
the Channel with greater comfort, and easier connections than the
airlines used to. So I switched. In my view, E* has won that round.
Yeah the airlines go more places, but I don't want to go there, so it's
of no use or interest. I've spent many hours in internal flights round
the US on business and the train is a far more civilized way to travel
IMO.

Pathetic - no. You obviously don't like it, and that's fair enough, but
it is not pathetic. The level of service is good - as good as anything
I've used on this side of the pond.

"50bmg"  wrote:


>Pathetic - no. You obviously don't like it, and that's fair enough, but
>it is not pathetic. The level of service is good - as good as anything
>I've used on this side of the pond.



Once again, you have completely missed the point, probably because you
cannot (or will not) see beyond your own personal use of the train.

What I stated was pathetic is not what Eurostar does (and does well),
but what it doesn't do.  As I have stated all along, Eurostar prefers
to rest on its laurels rather than provide a range of destinations,
either alone or in conjunction with other rail operators.  The
mainland European railway tracks do not come to an end at Paris and
Bruxelles, yet Eurostar appears to think that they do.

Your attitude appears to be that because Eurostar does what you want,
you don't care about what it doesn't do.  You are entitled to that
view, but the fact that you are happy in your own little world does
not in any way negate my point, which is based on a somewhat wider
perspective than just one person's use of one existing train service.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:f314i1tmepbsjph6al6hv4be1sbqdct4lq@4ax.com...

> "50bmg"  wrote:
>
>>Pathetic - no. You obviously don't like it, and that's fair enough, but
>>it is not pathetic. The level of service is good - as good as anything
>>I've used on this side of the pond.
>
>
> Once again, you have completely missed the point, probably because you
> cannot (or will not) see beyond your own personal use of the train.
>
> What I stated was pathetic is not what Eurostar does (and does well),
> but what it doesn't do.  As I have stated all along, Eurostar prefers
> to rest on its laurels rather than provide a range of destinations,
> either alone or in conjunction with other rail operators.  The
> mainland European railway tracks do not come to an end at Paris and
> Bruxelles, yet Eurostar appears to think that they do.
>
> Your attitude appears to be that because Eurostar does what you want,
> you don't care about what it doesn't do.  You are entitled to that
> view, but the fact that you are happy in your own little world does
> not in any way negate my point, which is based on a somewhat wider
> perspective than just one person's use of one existing train service.
>
>

The problem with going further afield are two-fold.
Firstly, the 'jumbo-jet' sized trains are about the correct size for the 
Paris market (indeed, some trains are now so fully booked that it is 
difficult to get tickets for them- 9047/51 being ones that spring to mind, 
being the ones my wife catches normally), but are far too big for most other 
potential destinations.
Secondly, diagramming the stock (and crews) becomes more difficult once the 
journey extends beyond the 2.5/3hour mark. The Avignon train, for example 
ties up one train for an entire day. In comparison, the sets used on Paris 
turns fit in two round trips in the same time. As the Paris trip inevitably 
has a higher number of premium fare passengers, and almost inevitably a 
higher load factor, the amount earned by that train in a day will be far 
greater than that earned by the train doing the longer journey.
What should be exploited to a greater extent are the connection 
possibilities at Lille and Brussels. At the former, reasonable connections 
are available for outward trains towards Lyon/Marseilles (I quote these as I 
have used them frequently, but I believe there are other services towards 
the west and south-west of France- these I have not yet used.), but the 
return trips are painfully prolonged by the 'border' formalities allowing 
one to transfer to E*. These aren't a problem for me, as I've got friends to 
visit at Lille station, but are a disincentive for others who rightly find 
Lille Europe cold and draughty. I have no experience of connections on to 
Thalys and other services at Brussels, but I have yet to see favourable 
reports.
Brian

Tony Polson wrote:


> What I stated was pathetic is not what Eurostar does (and does well),
> but what it doesn't do.  As I have stated all along, Eurostar prefers
> to rest on its laurels rather than provide a range of destinations,
> either alone or in conjunction with other rail operators.


That's because they realise that they need to grow in one area before
they can expand into others - that's how most businesses work. It's
sensible business planning. Make customers realise how good they are,
then when new products or services are introduced, you have a better
potential market. It would be really dumb if they inreoduced all these
new services that you're proposing, lost millions on it and went down
the tubes.


> Your attitude appears to be that because Eurostar does what you want,
> you don't care about what it doesn't do.


Far from it. I see no point in complaining because company X doesn't do
what I want.  In a free world, I have a choice. I don't complain
because Coca Cola don't make Beer.

On 10 Sep 2005 14:27:45 -0700, "50bmg"  wrote:


>Far from it. I see no point in complaining because company X doesn't do
>what I want.  In a free world, I have a choice. I don't complain
>because Coca Cola don't make Beer.


No other company does, or probably can, operate train services from
London to mainland Europe.  Eurostar is essentially a Government
monopoly that happens to be a private company, much like the TOCs.  As
such, it is entirely reasonable to complain about them doing bare
minimum rather than expanding their services, both from the
perspective of a potential user and a taxpayer paying their subsidy.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

50bmg wrote:


> I see no point in complaining because company X doesn't do what I
> want.


If only every contributor to this newsgroup took that line... ;o)

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633098.html
(55 011 at Peterborough, 3 Sep 1979)

Chris Tolley wrote:

> If only every contributor to this newsgroup took that line... ;o)
>
> --


Well, yeah - it'd be a bit boring! That view is to be used in context
of course. I think y'all know what I mean?!

Chris Tolley  wrote:


>50bmg wrote:
>
>> I see no point in complaining because company X doesn't do what I
>> want.
>
>If only every contributor to this newsgroup took that line...



.... this newsgroup would be very, very dull indeed.

Tony Polson wrote:

> Chris Tolley  wrote:
>>50bmg wrote:
>>
>>> I see no point in complaining because company X doesn't do what I
>>> want.
>>
>>If only every contributor to this newsgroup took that line...
> 
> ... this newsgroup would be very, very dull indeed.


Possibly. Of course, different folk find different things dull. Some of
the complaints aired in this NG have from my POV been very dull.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14486559.html
(33 108 on the Weymouth Tramway, 10 May 1985)

Chris Tolley  wrote:


>Tony Polson wrote:
>> Chris Tolley  wrote:
>>>50bmg wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see no point in complaining because company X doesn't do what I
>>>> want.
>>>
>>>If only every contributor to this newsgroup took that line...
>> 
>> ... this newsgroup would be very, very dull indeed.
>
>Possibly. Of course, different folk find different things dull. Some of
>the complaints aired in this NG have from my POV been very dull.



If everyone shared your POV, or mine, this newsgroup would be very,
very dull indeed.  The reason it isn't is that we have a huge variety
of contributors with a huge variety of interests.

In message 
          Tony   Polson  wrote:


> "50bmg"  wrote:
> 
> >Pathetic - no. You obviously don't like it, and that's fair enough, but
> >it is not pathetic. The level of service is good - as good as anything
> >I've used on this side of the pond.
> 
> 
> Once again, you have completely missed the point, probably because you
> cannot (or will not) see beyond your own personal use of the train.
> 
> What I stated was pathetic is not what Eurostar does (and does well),
> but what it doesn't do.  As I have stated all along, Eurostar prefers
> to rest on its laurels rather than provide a range of destinations,
> either alone or in conjunction with other rail operators.  The
> mainland European railway tracks do not come to an end at Paris and
> Bruxelles, yet Eurostar appears to think that they do.
> 


And you consistently ignore the political realties of the situation Eurostar
are in.

As for organising trips with other rail operators, I have recently been to to
Nmes on a trip organized by Eurostar in conjuction with SNCF.  This is not a
one off but one of many options that Eurostar offer.


-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In message <dfud3d$mgd$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>
          "BH Williams"  wrote:

[snip]

> but the  return trips are painfully prolonged by the 'border' formalities
> allowing  one to transfer to E*. These aren't a problem for me, as I've got
> friends to  visit at Lille station, but are a disincentive for others who
> rightly find  Lille Europe cold and draughty. I have no experience of
> connections on to  Thalys and other services at Brussels, but I have yet to
> see favourable  reports. Brian 
> 
> 


The 'border formalities' are inflicted on Eurostar by the little Englander
faction and until the politicians catch up with the 19th Centuy we are stuck
with them.  I've used both Brussels and Lille to connect with E* and the
worst bit is being cooped up in those stupid 'lounges' for 30 minutes for no
reason.  But that is the same as at Waterloo and GdN.  the stop at Brussels
coming back from Amsterdam lets me score brownie points with SHMBO by calling
at one of the Godiva shops at Midi.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:40:37 +0100, Graeme Wall
 wrote:



>The 'border formalities' are inflicted on Eurostar by the little Englander
>faction and until the politicians catch up with the 19th Centuy we are stuck
>with them.  I've used both Brussels and Lille to connect with E* and the
>worst bit is being cooped up in those stupid 'lounges' for 30 minutes for no
>reason.  But that is the same as at Waterloo and GdN.


At least in London and Brussels you don't have to wait sat on the
floor. In Paris there never seems to be enough seats. I've heard
claims this is because the French didn't believe Britain would still
insist on all the messing about after the Tunnel had been open for a
few months, and so they assumed the waiting area would soon become
redundant.

  the stop at Brussels

>coming back from Amsterdam lets me score brownie points with SHMBO by calling
>at one of the Godiva shops at Midi.


-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

Tony Polson wrote:


> If everyone shared your POV, or mine, this newsgroup would be very,
> very dull indeed.


I'm really quite nice when you get to know me, and rather more eclectic
in my views and interests than postings to a single-subject newsgroup
might suggest. ;-) 

I'd hazard a guess the same could be said of you. ;-)
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10907016.html
(47 357 at Bescot, 13 Jun 1999)

In message 
          Arthur Figgis  wrote:


> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:40:37 +0100, Graeme Wall 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > The 'border formalities' are inflicted on Eurostar by the little
> > Englander faction and until the politicians catch up with the 19th Centuy
> > we are stuck with them.  I've used both Brussels and Lille to connect
> > with E* and the worst bit is being cooped up in those stupid 'lounges'
> > for 30 minutes for no reason.  But that is the same as at Waterloo and
> > GdN.
> 
> At least in London and Brussels you don't have to wait sat on the floor. 


London always seems to be overcrowded


> In Paris there never seems to be enough seats. I've heard claims this is
> because the French didn't believe Britain would still insist on all the
> messing about after the Tunnel had been open for a few months, and so they
> assumed the waiting area would soon become redundant.


Daft of the French to think we'd do something sensible.


-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

Chris Tolley  wrote:


>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> If everyone shared your POV, or mine, this newsgroup would be very,
>> very dull indeed.
>
>I'm really quite nice when you get to know me, and rather more eclectic
>in my views and interests than postings to a single-subject newsgroup
>might suggest. ;-) 
>
>I'd hazard a guess the same could be said of you. ;-)



On the contrary, I am the complete bore.

;-)