Opinions on trains and planes.

"Stefan Patric" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:31:14 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:


Actually in Europe the high speed lines are in direct competiton with
the airlines and for journeys of up to 450 miles or so compete very
effectively in journey times. So much so that the train has taken more
than 80% of the business on lines like London-Paris.

Plus, unlike airports, the train depots are in town and not a 30 minute
or more ride away. Time saved is money not wasted.

The Chunnel surely has surpassed all expectations, hasn't it?

You dont see that much scenery when zipping along a TGV track at 185
mph.

Perhaps. The closest thing comparable I've experienced was a 140 mile
per hour jaunt in a Porsche Turbo on a lonely stretch of 2 lane blacktop
in southwest Utah years ago. Scenery didn't seem to pass all that
fast. ;-)

Stef

Sure but there isnt much scenery to see between London and Paris.
The north of France is flat and most of the route is alongside highways.

Keith

"Stefan Patric" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:31:14 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Stefan Patric" wrote in message
...


But are the majority of travelers (on the train) business travelers or
are they just average people traveling for other reasons? I think the
latter. The exception would be if the train is a commuter type where
in the morning and late afternoon most of the passengers are going to
or coming from work.


Take the Eurostar on a morning from London to Paris or Brussels on a
morning and you'll see an awful lot of people travelling on business.
The same is true on most of the high speed lines between major cities.

I can remember traveling by train as a child and much of the enjoyment
of the trip was watching the changing scenery, seeing the small, rural
communities that one would never see if flying pass by, talking to the
other passengers, playing cards or games, etc. People just lived a
slower more gregarious life then.


Actually in Europe the high speed lines are in direct competiton with
the airlines and for journeys of up to 450 miles or so compete very
effectively in journey times. So much so that the train has taken more
than 80% of the business on lines like London-Paris.

Plus, unlike airports, the train depots are in town and not a 30 minute
or more ride away. Time saved is money not wasted.

The Chunnel surely has surpassed all expectations, hasn't it?

In losing money, yes

In attracting passengers, not even close

tim

"tim....." wrote in message
...


The Chunnel surely has surpassed all expectations, hasn't it?

In losing money, yes


As it happens current traffic levels are pretty much in line with
the estimates, the problem is that it ramped up much more
slowly than predicted and building and financing costs were
much higher.

The main area of operational failure has been the market for through freight
traffic. This was expected to rise rapidly and this just hasnt happened

In 2008 revenues were up 11% on the year, with traffic as follows

Trucks +7%), cars +4% , coaches +5% , Eurostar passengers +18%
through freight -17%

Eurotunnel reported a small profit in the first half of 2008

Keith

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:
Deadhorse

I had a job interview with ARCO on the North Slope one time in

Oh yeah, I seem to recall you once noted that.

the 1980s, and flew in and out of Deadhorse from Anchorage after
flying from SeaTac to Anchorage. I had taken a couple of vacation
days in conjunction with a weekend for the trip. I got into
Deadhorse in mid-morning, and we went out to tour the ARCO
facilities, but by the end of the tour the wind had come up and
snow was blowing and we had to radio to some other trucks to come
form a caravan back to the ARCO "Hilton" (the fancy dorm they had
for the engineers). A whiteout was blowing up and I got out on
the last plane to leave deadhorse for a week.

I'm sure glad I didn't have to come up with some weird excuse for
my boss in Washington state why I was a week late coming back
from vacation.

Well ARCO has since been bought by BP as you likely know.
I only recently took the plunge into the Arctic Ocean. It was warm,
especially compared to our field camp's lake. ATCO is the name for the
hotels, trailers up there. There are now more and more subcontracted
players: Alyeska "No one gets hurt.", Veco, now CH2MHILL but some trucks
with the old logo, there's Halliburton with the Prudhoe Bay National
Forest (that's an amusing google image search joke, single sided,
Cheney's own version of humor). There's the oil side of Schlumburger,
the real side compared to the computer side.

The Haul road is now open to tourist traffic (Princess and Holland America).
3 kinds of people fly into/out of Deadhorse in high season: cruise tourists
("Luxury stops here..." in Los Anchorage), oil field workers (the ones
not flying AirBP, subcontractors), and a small number of researchers.
We are all pawns.

In just the past year a building boom has started in preparation for
North Slope drilling. All the pump stations have crews working.
New/future drilling is a foregone conclusion.

Not that this oil would remain American when it enters the world market.

--

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:59:53 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:51:00 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:31:14 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

The Chunnel surely has surpassed all expectations, hasn't it?

It damn near went broke and had to be financially bailed out...

But isn't the Chunnel now profitable or at least breaking even?

Was the Concord ever profitable at all?

Stef

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:20:12 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:59:53 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:51:00 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:31:14 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

The Chunnel surely has surpassed all expectations, hasn't it?

It damn near went broke and had to be financially bailed out...

But isn't the Chunnel now profitable or at least breaking even?

Was the Concord ever profitable at all?

it's being reported in Usenet that the channel tunnel (not
"chunnel") has -- finally -- turned a small profit. I suspect
it's an operting profit and doesn't include paying for the tunnel
in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotunnel_Units

There may be creative accounting, as well. Who knows?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:01:10 -0700:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:59:53 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:51:00 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:31:14 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

The Chunnel surely has surpassed all expectations, hasn't
it?

It damn near went broke and had to be financially bailed
out...

But isn't the Chunnel now profitable or at least breaking
even?

Was the Concord ever profitable at all?

it's being reported in Usenet that the channel tunnel (not
"chunnel") has -- finally -- turned a small profit. I suspect
it's an operting profit and doesn't include paying for the
tunnel in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotunnel_Units

There may be creative accounting, as well. Who knows?

It may not be the "official" word but you cannot deny that "Chunnel" is
very commonly used and, as always, usage wins.
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...


The Chunnel surely has surpassed all expectations, hasn't it?

In losing money, yes


As it happens current traffic levels are pretty much in line with
the estimates, the problem is that it ramped up much more
slowly than predicted and building and financing costs were
much higher.

The problem is that those traffic levels were predicted at fares expected to
be 4 times those being charged.

The main area of operational failure has been the market for through
freight
traffic. This was expected to rise rapidly and this just hasnt happened

In 2008 revenues were up 11% on the year, with traffic as follows

Trucks +7%), cars +4% , coaches +5% , Eurostar passengers +18%
through freight -17%

Eurotunnel reported a small profit in the first half of 2008

Only because they persuaded the banks to write off huge loans that were not
being repaid.

tim

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:20:12 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:59:53 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:51:00 GMT, Stefan Patric
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:31:14 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

The Chunnel surely has surpassed all expectations, hasn't it?

It damn near went broke and had to be financially bailed out...

But isn't the Chunnel now profitable or at least breaking even?

Was the Concord ever profitable at all?

it's being reported in Usenet that the channel tunnel (not
"chunnel") has -- finally -- turned a small profit. I suspect
it's an operting profit and doesn't include paying for the tunnel
in the first place.


Its made an operating profit for years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotunnel_Units

There may be creative accounting, as well. Who knows?


The reported profit is based on operating results and
repayments agreed under the restructuring deal announced
a couple of years ago.

Keith

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...


The Chunnel surely has surpassed all expectations, hasn't it?

In losing money, yes


As it happens current traffic levels are pretty much in line with
the estimates, the problem is that it ramped up much more
slowly than predicted and building and financing costs were
much higher.

The problem is that those traffic levels were predicted at fares expected
to be 4 times those being charged.


Thats part of the story, the predicted revenues were based on the fares
currently being charged by the ferries. As a result of the competiton
Eurotunnel introduced the ferry companies had to radically reduce
their own fares to survive. This resulted in a price war which hurt
both ferry operators and Eurotunnel

P&O lost 23% of its business in the first year that Eurotunnel
operated and had to merge with arival company. Other operators
such as Sally Lines and Oostende Lines went bust. Entire routes
such as those from Folkestone and Ramsgate as well as the
hovercraft routes were abandoned completely


The main area of operational failure has been the market for through
freight
traffic. This was expected to rise rapidly and this just hasnt happened

In 2008 revenues were up 11% on the year, with traffic as follows

Trucks +7%), cars +4% , coaches +5% , Eurostar passengers +18%
through freight -17%

Eurotunnel reported a small profit in the first half of 2008

Only because they persuaded the banks to write off huge loans that were
not being repaid.


No they were restructured not written off. The deal placed a cap
on future interest charges but didnt eliminate the capital owed.

Keith