French and Italian leaders vow completion of Lyon–Turin high-speed railway

CIE

EurActiv

The leaders of France and Italy pledged on Monday (3 December) to push ahead with a high-speed rail link between Lyon and Turin despite a row over EU spending.

With Britain leading calls to slash billions of euros from the European Union's 2014-2020 budget, French President François Hollande defended the rail link between southeast France and northwest Italy as essential to economic competitiveness.

Italy is the second-largest market for French goods and the third-biggest importer to France, but the Fréjus rail tunnel linking the countries in the Alps was built in the 19th century. It is too steeply sloped to be efficient for heavy rail cargo.

Hollande, an advocate of infrastructure spending to counter recession, acknowledged that the rail project – under discussion for 11 years – relied on EU funds. He and Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti defended it on economic grounds. ...

That second last bit is a bit confusing. How steep are the grades going towards the Fréjus tunnel anyway? never mind that the railway is electrified and locomotives with enough tractive effort could draw plenty of juice to run up and down quite rapidly.

corktina

it's a bottleneck on an otherwise high speed line I would imagine Surely you aren't opposed to spending money on improving a rail line?

Peregrinus

The Frejus Tunnel twists and turns, which limits speeds - especially for heavy trains. This in turn makes it difficult to deal efficiently with gradients. If the Frejus tunnel were either straight or level goods trains could use it with much greater efficiency.

LivelineDipso

How come our Government can't lobby for EU rail money?

Losty Dublin

LivelineDipso wrote: »

How come our Government can't lobby for EU rail money?

They have done so for years. At many railway stations there are signs relating to EU funding schemes; many city buses and Bus Eireann coaches have similar logos on them as well.

CIE

corktina wrote: »

it's a bottleneck on an otherwise high speed line I would imagine Surely you aren't opposed to spending money on improving a rail line?

I'm not opposed to reasonable spending, no. But when costs get out of control, I oppose that. And I prefer private spending versus public, because the right combination of frugality and safety will win out.

Stop imagining. It gets you into trouble...

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Fréjus Tunnel twists and turns, which limits speeds - especially for heavy trains. This in turn makes it difficult to deal efficiently with gradients. If the Fréjus tunnel were either straight or level, goods trains could use it with much greater efficiency

The tunnel itself looks rather straight to me. There is a long hairpin curve to reach it in Modane on the French side (which also limits the grades), but even with that, heavy freights hauled by electric power ought not be too slow, especially compared to diesel power (and if you were using steam, you'd need custom-built power). Heavy freights are not going to suddenly become fast freights; therefore it looks to me like the Fréjus tunnel would still suffice for that purpose.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

LiveLineDipso wrote: »

How come our Government can't lobby for EU rail money?

They have done so for years. At many railway stations there are signs relating to EU funding schemes; many city buses and Bus Eireann coaches have similar logos on them as well

IOW, this "lobbying" has not been for really important stuff, or has not been particularly successful. Since they have no problem appropriating roads funds, I say the former.

Losty Dublin

CIE wrote: »

.IOW, this "lobbying" has not been for really important stuff, or has not been particularly successful. Since they have no problem appropriating roads funds, I say the former.

No, it went to frivilous stuff such as rolling stock, locomotives, the entire resignaling and relaying of the Dublin-Belfast line as well as most lines in Ireland, new stations, new buses, bus stations.....

corktina

CIE wrote: »

I

Stop imagining. It gets you into trouble...

wtf are you on about now? it's a turn of phrase to indicate that I don't know chapter and verse on the subject, but it appears to me that the work is necessary to eliminate a bottleneck.

It seems obvious to me that a speed restricted section in a high-speed line is going to cause problems.

CIE

corktina wrote: »

wtf are you on about now? it's a turn of phrase to indicate that I don't know chapter and verse on the subject, but it appears to me that the work is necessary to eliminate a bottleneck.

It seems obvious to me that a speed restricted section in a high-speed line is going to cause problems

It hasn't been established that this is a bottleneck (indeed, there is a low level of saturation via that route, which is currently running at a third of its estimated capacity); the main problems claimed here are the steep grades, which electric locomotion can overcome easily (they need to learn from the USA on that score, seems to me). Nothing has been said by either railway officials or politicians (not even the unelected technocrats) about the curves, which although tight-looking are of a larger radius than they might look on a map or overhead view.

The total cost of this project has been estimated to be a colossal €25 billion. (That's an average of €210 million per mile based on a total project length of 119.3 miles, average costs of tunnels versus new surface railways not factored out.) The most expensive aspect of this will be the 35.4-mile base tunnel on the French side. And the economic case has not been proven. Enough money has been spent on improvements (and recent improvements too; concluded in 2011) to the existing railway line. And you've got your environmentalists and local residents dead against this mess of a new line, not without reason.

Going back some years, the estimate used to be €6.7 billion (average of €48 million per mile), and the current line was predicted to be at or over capacity by 2015 (two years away), but that isn't going to be the case now, and the climb in costs is unconscionable.

losty dublin wrote: »

No, it went to frivolous stuff such as rolling stock, locomotives, the entire resignaling and relaying of the Dublin-Belfast line as well as most lines in Ireland, new stations, new buses, bus stations

Again, not for really important stuff; a lot of those purchases were indeed frivolous, especially in light of the meagre results and even negative results. The way this is rendered so positively, we should have had 140-mph passenger trains on both the Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast railways, and 125 mph at least on every other intercity passenger rail service. But instead, we get no advancement, but a maintaining of the status quo from the 1970s, no expansion of railway service but rather retractions, and a call for more retractions. I call that a waste of the public's money.

Losty Dublin

CIE wrote: »

Again, not for really important stuff; a lot of those purchases were indeed frivolous, especially in light of the meagre results and even negative results. The way this is rendered so positively, we should have had 140-mph passenger trains on both the Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast railways, and 125 mph at least on every other intercity passenger rail service. But instead, we get no advancement, but a maintaining of the status quo from the 1970s, no expansion of railway service but rather retractions, and a call for more retractions. I call that a waste of the public's money.

If you actually look at everything which was replaced over the last 20 years, from old locomotive and carriages to track work from the bottom up to new signals to expanded stations you will see how much has come on stream. While speeds are not up over the 100 MPH mark, you could do worse than ask the Dept of Transport why they didn't fund such improvements and how much they would have cost to achieve. The monies needed to make good of same are astronomical and to shift small amounts of people in comparison to mainland Europe.

dermo88

CIE

Again, not for really important stuff; a lot of those purchases were indeed frivolous, especially in light of the meagre results and even negative results. The way this is rendered so positively, we should have had 140-mph passenger trains on both the Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast railways, and 125 mph at least on every other intercity passenger rail service. But instead, we get no advancement, but a maintaining of the status quo from the 1970s, no expansion of railway service but rather retractions, and a call for more retractions. I call that a waste of the public's money.

How on earth are the following 'frivilous'

1. An increase in frequency on all routes from Dublin.
2. The vast proportion of the network renewed with CWR
3. Signalling renewed.
4. Almost all passenger rolling stock is much younger.

Contrast that with the state of the system 20, or even 10 years ago, and it is....quite a stark contrast.

CIE

dermo88 wrote: »

CIE

Again, not for really important stuff; a lot of those purchases were indeed frivolous, especially in light of the meagre results and even negative results. The way this is rendered so positively, we should have had 140-mph passenger trains on both the Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast railways, and 125 mph at least on every other intercity passenger rail service. But instead, we get no advancement, but a maintaining of the status quo from the 1970s, no expansion of railway service but rather retractions, and a call for more retractions. I call that a waste of the public's money.

How on earth are the following 'frivolous'

1. An increase in frequency on all routes from Dublin.
2. The vast proportion of the network renewed with CWR
3. Signalling renewed.
4. Almost all passenger rolling stock is much younger.

Contrast that with the state of the system 20, or even 10 years ago, and it is....quite a stark contrast.

What trains are faster? Do we have more trains overall or fewer? Are the increase in frequencies worth it or just a waste? Do we have more lines (route miles) or fewer? Were the rolling stock purchases a waste compared to retaining/rebuilding older stock (younger newer does not automatically translate to better)? Is anyone else able to see the big picture and able to tell the difference between good money and bad money? Answer those questions and perhaps people can start to tell, instead of following the government blindly.

CIE

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If you actually look at everything which was replaced over the last 20 years, from old locomotive and carriages to track work from the bottom up to new signals to expanded stations you will see how much has come on stream. While speeds are not up over the 100 MPH mark, you could do worse than ask the Dept of Transport why they didn't fund such improvements and how much they would have cost to achieve. The monies needed to make good of same are astronomical and to shift small amounts of people in comparison to mainland Europe

No, those costs are not astronomical whatsoever, and what has been done in neighbouring countries is the proof. I don't have to ask the Department of Transport, because I know I won't get a straight answer; I merely have to compare the amounts spent in Ireland versus those spent elsewhere in Europe for the comparative same number of people (potential and actual ridership).

Whenever someone says "we could do worse", then we have done worse. Otherwise, that phrase would not be uttered.

rugbyman

Gentlemen
I know little of the technicalities, but read an article last week on the need for this new tunnel.
It appears that ,due to the inclines inside the existing one it takes three locomotives to haul a laden train now, with the proposed one it will take one locomotive. there may be other gains.
Completely irrelevant ,i have driven trucks through the Frejus Road Tunnel, and much more exciting driven over the top of the Frejus mountain road, many years ago.
it was only possible in Summer. Dont think its permitted now (in a lorry)

Regards, Rugbyman

dowlingm

CIE wrote: »

What trains are faster? Do we have more trains overall or fewer? Are the increase in frequencies worth it or just a waste?

Average journey time = train time in motion + 50% of headway. Higher frequencies bring the departure time closer to the time a traveller wants it to be, subject to diminishing returns.