Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Great European Rail Test

Cobbles said:
Less of the M25 centricity - St Pancras (and the money spent on shifting Eurostar from one side of Lunnun to t'other side) is pointless to the vast majority of the Uk population who have to spend 2, 3, 4, 5 or even more hours just getting to its hallowed portals by rail....
Nothing to do with the fact that it's considerably closer to mainland France than Edinburgh then?
 
Cobbles said:
Less of the M25 centricity - St Pancras (and the money spent on shifting Eurostar from one side of Lunnun to t'other side) is pointless to the vast majority of the Uk population who have to spend 2, 3, 4, 5 or even more hours just getting to its hallowed portals by rail....
By rail, the continent is now 1 hour closer to destinations north of london. Any future improvements or new build to the nation's railways will bring it even closer. High-Speed 1 and the channel tunnel are running at something like 1/3 capacity (don't quote me, I don't have time for a thorough search), so continuous HS operation to the north is not out of the question. Just expnsive.
 
Crispy said:
By rail, the continent is now 1 hour closer to destinations north of london. Any future improvements or new build to the nation's railways will bring it even closer. High-Speed 1 and the channel tunnel are running at something like 1/3 capacity (don't quote me, I don't have time for a thorough search), so continuous HS operation to the north is not out of the question. Just expnsive.
I suspect that the Edinburgh to Amsterdam tunnel might be off the menu permanently though.

Good to hear Cobbles' enthusiasm for such a vastly expensive project though.
 
editor said:
I suspect that the Edinburgh to Amsterdam tunnel might be off the menu permanently though.

Good to hear Cobbles' enthusiasm for such a vastly expensive project though.

I'd never use it myself as it'd still be a hell of a lot quicker (and cheaper) to fly. It's just unfortunate that such a bucket of cash had to be squandered on something as trivial as carving 20 minutes off how long it takes day trippers to get to Paris etc.
 
Witha high speed rail link to Scotland, it is not without the bounds of possibility that the train could be faster than flying from Edinburgh to some European destinations.
 
Isambard said:
Witha high speed rail link to Scotland, it is not without the bounds of possibility that the train could be faster than flying from Edinburgh to some European destinations.

Ho ho - very funny - not unless the trains to Lunnun can arrive earlier than they depart (e.g. using eco-bollox time shifting mega-drive).

Taken at random from Edinburgh Airport's timetable:

Amsterdam 1 hour 40 mins.
Brussels 1 hour 40 mins.
Bucharest 6 hours (non direct)
Chambery 2 hours 15 minutes

Even if you could get a direct train to St Pancras that took less than an hour, it still wouldn't make sense to go by rail.

What European destinations were you thinking of - Stavanger? Frankfurt? - it just doesn't make sense to travel 400+ miles South before heading East.
 
You need to take into account the time to travel to the airport, check in, collect your luggage and travel from the airport at the other end.

Newcastle to London Kings Crosss is now around three hours.
Edinburgh to London could be achieved in a similar time. Given the investment. London St Pancras to Paris under three hours. I am VERY confident you COULD be quicker on the train than the plane from Princes Street to the Champs Elysée.

Longer distances?
I'd rather do an extra couple of hours on a train than in a plane or car.
Or overnight.

Naples is in a fairly similar geographical position to Edinburgh in relation to "core" Europe. Don't see them bitching.

I know from my own job that nowadays, it is "normal" to do a day visit between major European centres.
This has increased profits for business but we have to ask ourselves if it is right.
 
Back
Top Bottom