Air France eyes move to railways

James Silverton wrote:
AES wrote on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:18:22 -0700:

And even outside France. The time you need to go to and from
the airport at either end of the journey, plus the hours
wasted for check in, mean that quite a few destinations
further afield that have TGV lines are almost as quick to get
to on the TGV as by plane. I live at about 50 km from
Marseille-Provence airport. An hour to get there, an hour
(luckily, this isn't Heathrow) needed for check-in, and hour
say to get to the centre of London and a two hour flight. 5
hours. The direct TGV from Avignon that runs in the summer
can get me to London in just over six hours. A little longer
(with a half hour drive to Avignon) but far more comfortable
and pleasant. The only disadvantage is the price.

I'll add an enthusiastic endorsement to this post, referring
to almost any journey one might want to make in Germany or in
northern Europe.


I would support your endorsement heartily. What the US needs for safety
and ecological reasons is fast passenger trains for short to medium
jouneys. A true speed of 150- 200mph including stops would better most
East Coast air traffic. If maglev tracks could be built even coast to
coast trains might be practical.

The German Transrapid maglev project was finally abandoned recently
after decades of development and only one sale, the Shanghai-Pudong link.
The last failed project leading to abandonment was the Munich airport
link. The cost was finally estimated at over 3 bn Euros for the 40km
distance. In addition, a serious fatal accident on the test track in
2006 lead to doubts about the safety.
T.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:08:52 +0000, John Levine wrote:

On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at
taking passengers to the air terminals.

That's not inconsistent, since there are TGV stations adjacent to the
airports at CDG and Lyon Satolas. Rail/air interlining has been popular
in Germany for a long time, after all.

This has come about as the TGV (tres grand vitesse) high speed train
which travels at 300 mph

It's 300 kph, not mph, in revenue service, actually, but that's still
about as fast as a commuter prop plane.

And it's 300 km/h, not kph :-)

R

"rousseau" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:08:52 +0000, John Levine wrote:

On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at
taking passengers to the air terminals.

That's not inconsistent, since there are TGV stations adjacent to the
airports at CDG and Lyon Satolas. Rail/air interlining has been popular
in Germany for a long time, after all.

This has come about as the TGV (tres grand vitesse) high speed train
which travels at 300 mph

It's 300 kph, not mph, in revenue service, actually, but that's still
about as fast as a commuter prop plane.

And it's 300 km/h, not kph :-)

R

Tomatoe, Tomato, we knew what he was talking about.

Billy Puffin wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7489483.stm

Short-haul Air France passengers could soon be moving onto trains

Arenn't they there already? We took TGV to Lyon. 300 miles in 2 hours.

rousseau wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:08:52 +0000, John Levine wrote:


On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at
taking passengers to the air terminals.

That's not inconsistent, since there are TGV stations adjacent to the
airports at CDG and Lyon Satolas. Rail/air interlining has been popular
in Germany for a long time, after all.


This has come about as the TGV (tres grand vitesse) high speed train
which travels at 300 mph

It's 300 kph, not mph, in revenue service, actually, but that's still
about as fast as a commuter prop plane.


And it's 300 km/h, not kph :-)

R


Really?
Are you positively sure your definition is the only one?
There are other sourcs, but try this one.

kph

abbr. kilometers per hour


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

"rousseau" kirjoitti
...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:08:52 +0000, John Levine wrote:

On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at
taking passengers to the air terminals.

That's not inconsistent, since there are TGV stations adjacent to the
airports at CDG and Lyon Satolas. Rail/air interlining has been popular
in Germany for a long time, after all.

This has come about as the TGV (tres grand vitesse) high speed train
which travels at 300 mph

It's 300 kph, not mph, in revenue service, actually, but that's still
about as fast as a commuter prop plane.

And it's 300 km/h, not kph :-)

Actually these are one and the same measure.

Markku Grönroos wrote:

"rousseau" kirjoitti
...

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:08:52 +0000, John Levine wrote:

On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at
taking passengers to the air terminals.


That's not inconsistent, since there are TGV stations adjacent to the
airports at CDG and Lyon Satolas. Rail/air interlining has been popular
in Germany for a long time, after all.

This has come about as the TGV (tres grand vitesse) high speed train
which travels at 300 mph


It's 300 kph, not mph, in revenue service, actually, but that's still
about as fast as a commuter prop plane.


And it's 300 km/h, not kph :-)

Actually these are one and the same measure.

He probably thinks there is a big difference between a cubic centimeter
and a milliliter.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:26:43 -0700, mrtravel wrote:

mrtravel wrote:

rousseau wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:08:52 +0000, John Levine wrote:


On French radio this morning they said it would be mainly aimed at
taking passengers to the air terminals.

That's not inconsistent, since there are TGV stations adjacent to the
airports at CDG and Lyon Satolas. Â*Rail/air interlining has been
popular
in Germany for a long time, after all.


This has come about as the TGV (tres grand vitesse) high speed train
which travels at 300 mph

It's 300 kph, not mph, in revenue service, actually, but that's still
about as fast as a commuter prop plane.


And it's 300 km/h, not kph :-)

R


Really?
Are you positively sure your definition is the only one?

It's not 'my' definition, it's the international one.

There are other sourcs, but try this one.

kph

abbr. Â* kilometers per hour


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

A US dictionary is not the place to look for definitions of units or their
symbols. Try http://www.bipm.org/en/si/.

And take a look at any speedo (even UK ones).

R

rousseau wrote:


A US dictionary is not the place to look for definitions of units or their
symbols. Try http://www.bipm.org/en/si/.

And take a look at any speedo (even UK ones).


As an American, what resource should I use. Why do you think you
reference is the only correct one? After all, you probably spell color
"colour". Am I wrong because my dictionary says "color"?

mrtravel wrote:

rousseau wrote:


A US dictionary is not the place to look for definitions of units or
their symbols. Try http://www.bipm.org/en/si/.

And take a look at any speedo (even UK ones).


As an American, what resource should I use. Why do you think you
reference is the only correct one? After all, you probably spell color
"colour". Am I wrong because my dictionary says "color"?

You use the resource I cited. It's the body that defines the International
System of Units (and the US is part of that body).

R