Comments on: Here comes the Javelin: High speed rail transit arrives in the U.K. http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/here-comes-the-javelin-high-speed-rail-transit-arrives-in-the-uk/ The last honest travel site Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:20:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Graham http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/here-comes-the-javelin-high-speed-rail-transit-arrives-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-13363 Graham Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:54:18 +0000 http://www.tripso.com/?p=15982#comment-13363 Now, I'll address the original article. The new trains only run at 140 mph on the line that takes Eurostar trains (which run at 186 mph) to and from the Channel Tunnel and Paris/Brussels. Once they get onto the existing railway network they run at conventional speeds (generally less that 90mph in that part of the UK). So what about the rest of the UK? The long distance trains tend to have a maximum speed of between 100 and 125 mph - in a small country that's still pretty quick. But, of course they don't run that fast all the time, and, like the 140 mph trains they are subject to the physical limitations of the rest of the network. I live 120 miles from London and have the choice of two local stations to get me there. One takes between 1hr 44 and 2 hr 10, the other 2hr 20 to 2hr 30. I don't think of that as too slow and I don't live where the new trains will be going. Yes, the new trains will help if you're going to Canterbury but it wasn't difficult to get to anyway. The rest of the country is still easy to get round by train. Now, I’ll address the original article. The new trains only run at 140 mph on the line that takes Eurostar trains (which run at 186 mph) to and from the Channel Tunnel and Paris/Brussels. Once they get onto the existing railway network they run at conventional speeds (generally less that 90mph in that part of the UK).

So what about the rest of the UK? The long distance trains tend to have a maximum speed of between 100 and 125 mph – in a small country that’s still pretty quick. But, of course they don’t run that fast all the time, and, like the 140 mph trains they are subject to the physical limitations of the rest of the network. I live 120 miles from London and have the choice of two local stations to get me there. One takes between 1hr 44 and 2 hr 10, the other 2hr 20 to 2hr 30. I don’t think of that as too slow and I don’t live where the new trains will be going.

Yes, the new trains will help if you’re going to Canterbury but it wasn’t difficult to get to anyway. The rest of the country is still easy to get round by train.

]]> By: Graham http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/here-comes-the-javelin-high-speed-rail-transit-arrives-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-13362 Graham Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:44:36 +0000 http://www.tripso.com/?p=15982#comment-13362 Joe wonders about the benefit of trains versus cars when touring the UK. Like so many things it depends. I've just spent two months in New Zealand and I took the train across the South Island from Christchurch to Greymouth. Why? because it allowed me to see and appreciate *all* the scenery, not just the snatched glances I get when I'm concentrating on diving. If you're looking at scenery or a thatched roof while driving I cannot accept that you are driving safely. In the UK trains go past thatched cottages and into some of the most beautiful parts of the country (try Swansea to Shrewsbury or Weymouth to Bristol); you can sit and enjoy the world pass you by. They will also take you through industrial archaeology - it's up to you. They won't take you everywhere and they might require you to walk from the station to your hotel. With some planning they can be remarkably inexpensive I've bought tickets for a 100 mile journey for as little as £9 and if you're over sixty you can buy a senior railcard and get another 34% off even the £9. But, back to New Zealand, I got to Greymouth and hired a car. Unfortunately, Kiwi Rail only runs three long distance trains so there are enormous areas of the country that you either have to drive yourself to, or get a bus (be it on a tour or as an independent traveller) if one runs. The same is less true in the UK where public transport (buses as well as trains) reach much, much more of the country. But, yes, there are places which are difficult to reach without a car so it depends where you want to go. If you can restrict (bad choice of word) yourself to places that the rail network serves then you can sit and watch the countryside, hop off in a village, hop back on later and enjoy the UK. If your feel you have to go to places not served by public transport join the mad rush on the roads and watch the brake lights in front of you! Mind you, even better is to bring your bicycle but that's another story. Joe wonders about the benefit of trains versus cars when touring the UK. Like so many things it depends. I’ve just spent two months in New Zealand and I took the train across the South Island from Christchurch to Greymouth. Why? because it allowed me to see and appreciate *all* the scenery, not just the snatched glances I get when I’m concentrating on diving. If you’re looking at scenery or a thatched roof while driving I cannot accept that you are driving safely. In the UK trains go past thatched cottages and into some of the most beautiful parts of the country (try Swansea to Shrewsbury or Weymouth to Bristol); you can sit and enjoy the world pass you by. They will also take you through industrial archaeology – it’s up to you. They won’t take you everywhere and they might require you to walk from the station to your hotel. With some planning they can be remarkably inexpensive I’ve bought tickets for a 100 mile journey for as little as £9 and if you’re over sixty you can buy a senior railcard and get another 34% off even the £9.

But, back to New Zealand, I got to Greymouth and hired a car. Unfortunately, Kiwi Rail only runs three long distance trains so there are enormous areas of the country that you either have to drive yourself to, or get a bus (be it on a tour or as an independent traveller) if one runs. The same is less true in the UK where public transport (buses as well as trains) reach much, much more of the country. But, yes, there are places which are difficult to reach without a car so it depends where you want to go. If you can restrict (bad choice of word) yourself to places that the rail network serves then you can sit and watch the countryside, hop off in a village, hop back on later and enjoy the UK. If your feel you have to go to places not served by public transport join the mad rush on the roads and watch the brake lights in front of you!

Mind you, even better is to bring your bicycle but that’s another story.

]]> By: Joe http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/here-comes-the-javelin-high-speed-rail-transit-arrives-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-13350 Joe Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:46:39 +0000 http://www.tripso.com/?p=15982#comment-13350 As an American, I found the teaser from the RSS feed (which, fortunately, was not included in the article above) a bit offensive: "If you're coming to the UK, will you take to the rails and see more of the country since if you're an American, you won't be forced to drive 'on the wrong side of the road?' " But, to answer the offensive question: No way! Driving in the UK is a delight, and I can't imagine that the train would offer anything to compensate for taking away the chance to drive through thatched-roof villages, pass by gorgeous several-hundred-year-old ruins of parish churches, and stop at hole-in-the-wall fish-and-chips shops (one of which is still my fondly remembered basis for comparison whenever I eat fried fish). By the way, the U.S. is not the only place where people drive on the right. And the word we use for the side they drive on in the U.K. (and about 1/3 of the rest of the world) is "left," not "wrong." It's only "wrong" if you do it here. (We're really a lot more cosmopolitan than you might think, if you will look at us as individuals, and not as a stereotype.) -- Joe: Atlanta, Georgia, USA As an American, I found the teaser from the RSS feed (which, fortunately, was not included in the article above) a bit offensive: “If you’re coming to the UK, will you take to the rails and see more of the country since if you’re an American, you won’t be forced to drive ‘on the wrong side of the road?’ ”

But, to answer the offensive question: No way! Driving in the UK is a delight, and I can’t imagine that the train would offer anything to compensate for taking away the chance to drive through thatched-roof villages, pass by gorgeous several-hundred-year-old ruins of parish churches, and stop at hole-in-the-wall fish-and-chips shops (one of which is still my fondly remembered basis for comparison whenever I eat fried fish).

By the way, the U.S. is not the only place where people drive on the right. And the word we use for the side they drive on in the U.K. (and about 1/3 of the rest of the world) is “left,” not “wrong.” It’s only “wrong” if you do it here. (We’re really a lot more cosmopolitan than you might think, if you will look at us as individuals, and not as a stereotype.)

– Joe: Atlanta, Georgia, USA

]]>