Gatwick Cries "Murder" Over Rail Shake-Up

[Casey]

..... blah, blah .....
The airport was the first in the world to pioneer a dedicated rail express.
..... blah, blah .....

http://news.airwise.com/stories/2004/12/1102456753.html

Is this news story true? Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.


Casey

[Montcharmont F]

Oslo Gardermoen . Milano Malpensa ? London Heathrow .
Bigfoot . Den norsker Fransken togfarer

Post by Casey
..... blah, blah .....
The airport was the first in the world to pioneer a dedicated rail express.
..... blah, blah .....
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2004/12/1102456753.html
Is this news story true? Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.
Casey

[Ulf Kutzner]

Post by Montcharmont F
Oslo Gardermoen . Milano Malpensa ? London Heathrow .

Moscow Domodedovo.

Regards, ULF

[Mike Roebuck]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:39:58 +0100, Ulf Kutzner

Post by Ulf Kutzner

Post by Montcharmont F
Oslo Gardermoen . Milano Malpensa ? London Heathrow .

Moscow Domodedovo.

And one of the other Moscow airports, as of a few weeks ago. I can't
remember which one, but it isn't Sheremetyevo.

[Ulf Kutzner]

Post by Mike Roebuck

Post by Ulf Kutzner

Post by Montcharmont F
Oslo Gardermoen . Milano Malpensa ? London Heathrow .

Moscow Domodedovo.

And one of the other Moscow airports, as of a few weeks ago. I can't
remember which one, but it isn't Sheremetyevo.

Well, yes and no. The Vukovo airport train does not exactly go to the
airport.

Regards, ULF

[Ulf Kutzner]

Post by Ulf Kutzner

Post by Mike Roebuck

Post by Ulf Kutzner
Moscow Domodedovo.

And one of the other Moscow airports, as of a few weeks ago. I can't
remember which one, but it isn't Sheremetyevo.

Well, yes and no. The Vukovo airport train does not exactly go to the
airport.

The is a new service to Sheremetyevo, with bus to and from Lobnya.

http://tr.ru/news/2454

Regards, ULF

[David Eerdmans]

Post by Casey
Is this news story true? Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.

Integrating the airport in an existing network is in my opinion a much
better solution than a "dedicated" rail service. The usability of the
former is much better, because direct connections exist to far more
destinations.

A dedicated rail service makes it easier though to charge higher fares,
which seems pretty popular nowadays with traffic planners.

Regards,
David

[tim]

Post by David Eerdmans

Post by Casey
Is this news story true? Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.

Integrating the airport in an existing network is in my opinion a much
better solution than a "dedicated" rail service. The usability of the
former is much better, because direct connections exist to far more
destinations.
A dedicated rail service makes it easier though to charge higher fares,
which seems pretty popular nowadays with traffic planners.

Such as for the stupidly unnecessary version at Wien. (Almost)
three times the price for a massive 8 minute saving in journey time.
And if your ultimate destination isn't Mitte (and for many it isn't)
you will lose most of those 8 minute buying another ticket for the
onward underground connection that's included in the fare on the
'normal' train. There can be no reason for this service other than
to rip off the unwary IMHO.

tim

Post by David Eerdmans
Regards,
David

[Martin Edwards]

Post by David Eerdmans

Post by Casey
Is this news story true? Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.

Integrating the airport in an existing network is in my opinion a much
better solution than a "dedicated" rail service. The usability of the
former is much better, because direct connections exist to far more
destinations.
A dedicated rail service makes it easier though to charge higher fares,
which seems pretty popular nowadays with traffic planners.
Regards,
David

As with the Heathrow Express.

[Hatunen]

On 13 Dec 2004 17:25:45 GMT, "David Eerdmans"

Post by David Eerdmans

Post by Casey
Is this news story true? Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.

Integrating the airport in an existing network is in my opinion a much
better solution than a "dedicated" rail service. The usability of the
former is much better, because direct connections exist to far more
destinations.
A dedicated rail service makes it easier though to charge higher fares,
which seems pretty popular nowadays with traffic planners.

It's a little unclear just what a "dedicated" rail service is in
this context. The Gatwick Express is a train running on existing
tracks, and I assume it always has been. Furthermore, the GE is
just one of many train services to and through Gatwick Airport,
and it takes you to Victoria Station just like many "undedicated"
trains do. I'm not clear on just how the GE is a dedicated
service.

Now the Heathrow Express is the only service to Heathrow and runs
on tracks installed especially for it, and is certainly
"dedicated".

************* DAVE HATUNEN (***@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

[Phil Richards]

I'm not clear on just how the GE is a dedicated service.

Dedicated in so far that it runs non-stop from Gatwick to London Victoria
catering primarily for traffic to and from the airport.

As you rightly say other train operators serve Gatwick Airport serving
numerous other stations.

Now the Heathrow Express is the only service to Heathrow and runs
on tracks installed especially for it, and is certainly
"dedicated".

Heathrow Express shares the same lines as other express trains to and from
Paddington as far as the junction near Hayes & Harlington where a line to
the airport branches off.

[B.Rumary]

Post by Phil Richards

Post by Hatunen
Now the Heathrow Express is the only service to Heathrow and runs
on tracks installed especially for it, and is certainly
"dedicated".

Heathrow Express shares the same lines as other express trains to and from
Paddington as far as the junction near Hayes & Harlington where a line to
the airport branches off.

The London Underground also has a line to Heathrow.

Brian Rumary, England

http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm

[Jishnu Mukerji]

Post by B.Rumary

Post by Phil Richards

Post by Hatunen
Now the Heathrow Express is the only service to Heathrow and runs
on tracks installed especially for it, and is certainly
"dedicated".

Heathrow Express shares the same lines as other express trains to and from
Paddington as far as the junction near Hayes & Harlington where a line to
the airport branches off.

The London Underground also has a line to Heathrow.

And a stopping service is soon to be introduced between Heathrow and
Paddington, stopping at Hayes & Harlington, Southall and Ealing Broadway
AFAIR.

Jishnu.

[Alan J. Flavell]

Post by Hatunen
It's a little unclear just what a "dedicated" rail service is in
this context. The Gatwick Express is a train running on existing
tracks, and I assume it always has been.

Right. However, it deliberately has no intermediate stops, charges a
slightly[1] premium fare, and is quite deliberately aimed at air
travellers (with cumbersome luggage) in a part of the country where
commuter rail travel is (as we say) "wedged".

Post by Hatunen
Furthermore, the GE is just one of many train services to and
through Gatwick Airport, and it takes you to Victoria Station just
like many "undedicated" trains do. I'm not clear on just how the GE
is a dedicated

Indeed; and on the one hand, some people quite deliberately drive to,
and park their cars at, Gatwick Airport and take the more-expensive
fare in order to use the GatEx into Victoria, and thus avoid the
commuter crush. You don't need to prove you're an air passenger to
use it, so in that sense it isn't "dedicated".

Then again, on the other hand, air travellers - especially those who
have no interest in central London and/or have limited amounts of
luggage - can take whichever train best suits them. There's no actual
compulsion to use the GatEx.

But, having said that: forcing those who not only have cumbersome
luggage, but also want to get to the centre of London, to fight it out
with the crowds of battle-hardened commuters on regular stopping
trains, will not be a pretty sight.

Post by Hatunen
Now the Heathrow Express is the only service to Heathrow

Not counting the Underground line that goes there...

Post by Hatunen
and runs on tracks installed especially for it, and is certainly
"dedicated".

Indeed. There's arguments for both kinds of operation; sometimes the
circumstances favour one, sometimes another. Glasgow are planning to
build the affordable option which their consultants told them was
pointless and a waste of money, as opposed to the worthwhile one which
the consultants told them they couldn't afford. Funny old world.

all the best

[1] I recall the old airport at Munich Riem. There was an adequate
city bus connecting with the tram or the S-Bahn, with a joint-tariff
(MVV) ticket that would take you anywhere in the city area. But
hidden at an obscure bus-stop that the casual visitor wouldn't find.
Or a prominently-advertised dedicated airport bus to the main railway
station (HBf) for a considerable sum of money (IIRC about 3 times the
standard joint-tariff fare for the city). From which, it cost exactly
the same to reach anywhere else in the city as it would have done from
the airport. So the price of the airport bus was pretty-much wasted,
unless you specifically wanted to go to the main station (and were
encumbered with luggage).

[Marco Cattaneo]

Post by Alan J. Flavell

Post by Hatunen
It's a little unclear just what a "dedicated" rail service is in
this context. The Gatwick Express is a train running on existing
tracks, and I assume it always has been.

Right. However, it deliberately has no intermediate stops, charges a
slightly[1] premium fare, and is quite deliberately aimed at air
travellers (with cumbersome luggage) in a part of the country where
commuter rail travel is (as we say) "wedged".

While the Gatwick Express may be attractive in the morning rush hour, this
is certainly not true at other times. I arrived in Gatwick recently on a
Thursday evening, around 19:00. I took the stopping train to Victoria, my
carriage was empty apart from a couple of girls who were travelling up from
Brighton.

I arrived at Victoria at the same time as a Gatwick Express. That train was
completely packed with air travellers. I am sure I had a more confortable
journey, which only took 5 minutes longer and cost about 25% less....

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <***@4ax.com> Hatunen <***@cox.net> writes:
...

Post by Hatunen
It's a little unclear just what a "dedicated" rail service is in
this context. The Gatwick Express is a train running on existing
tracks, and I assume it always has been. Furthermore, the GE is
just one of many train services to and through Gatwick Airport,
and it takes you to Victoria Station just like many "undedicated"
trains do. I'm not clear on just how the GE is a dedicated
service.

When it started it was certainly a dedicated service.

[Hatunen]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:46:27 GMT, "Dik T. Winter"

Post by Dik T. Winter
...

Post by Hatunen
It's a little unclear just what a "dedicated" rail service is in
this context. The Gatwick Express is a train running on existing
tracks, and I assume it always has been. Furthermore, the GE is
just one of many train services to and through Gatwick Airport,
and it takes you to Victoria Station just like many "undedicated"
trains do. I'm not clear on just how the GE is a dedicated
service.

When it started it was certainly a dedicated service.

In what sense? Was it the only train from Gatwick into London at
that time?

************* DAVE HATUNEN (***@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

[Casey]

Post by Hatunen

Post by Dik T. Winter

I'm not clear on just how the GE is a dedicated service.

When it started it was certainly a dedicated service.

In what sense? Was it the only train from Gatwick into London
at that time?

I think the original article used the term dedicated to refer to a train
that starts at the airport and arrives at a central train station with no
intervening stops. Trains with 100% dedicated tracks are very rare
on those routes, it seems.


Casey

[Hatunen]

Post by Casey

Post by Hatunen

Post by Dik T. Winter

I'm not clear on just how the GE is a dedicated service.

When it started it was certainly a dedicated service.

In what sense? Was it the only train from Gatwick into London
at that time?

I think the original article used the term dedicated to refer to a train
that starts at the airport and arrives at a central train station with no
intervening stops.

In that sense it still is dedicated.


************* DAVE HATUNEN (***@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

[Graeme Wall]

In message <***@4ax.com>
Hatunen <***@cox.net> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Hatunen
It's a little unclear just what a "dedicated" rail service is in
this context. The Gatwick Express is a train running on existing
tracks, and I assume it always has been. Furthermore, the GE is
just one of many train services to and through Gatwick Airport,
and it takes you to Victoria Station just like many "undedicated"
trains do. I'm not clear on just how the GE is a dedicated
service.

The Gatwick express only stops at Victoria and Gatwick, which makes it
dedicated to that service.

[Erwan David]

Post by David Eerdmans
A dedicated rail service makes it easier though to charge higher fares,
which seems pretty popular nowadays with traffic planners.

And I appreciated being able to take train from Gatwick to Brighton
when there was still flights from Paris to Gatwick...

A service a dedicated link would not have offered...

[Bengt Österdahl]

Post by David Eerdmans

Post by Casey
Is this news story true? Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.

Integrating the airport in an existing network is in my opinion a much
better solution than a "dedicated" rail service. The usability of the
former is much better, because direct connections exist to far more
destinations.

Arlanda Express which is a dedicated service runs on the same tracks the
express trains to the northern part of Sweden. They also make a stop at
Arlanda Airport.

/Bengt

[Lennart Petersen]

Post by Bengt Österdahl

Post by David Eerdmans

Post by Casey
Is this news story true? Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.

Integrating the airport in an existing network is in my opinion a much
better solution than a "dedicated" rail service. The usability of the
former is much better, because direct connections exist to far more
destinations.

Arlanda Express which is a dedicated service runs on the same tracks the
express trains to the northern part of Sweden. They also make a stop at
Arlanda Airport.

Well the Connex trains to Norrland doesn't run through Arlanda Central any
longer, leaving a few through SJ trains only,sometimes with a gap of 2 hour.
Arlanda express have dedicated tracks to Arlanda Södra and Arlanda Norra.

[Bengt Österdahl]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:47:11 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"

Post by Lennart Petersen

Post by Bengt Österdahl
Arlanda Express which is a dedicated service runs on the same tracks the
express trains to the northern part of Sweden. They also make a stop at
Arlanda Airport.

Well the Connex trains to Norrland doesn't run through Arlanda Central any
longer, leaving a few through SJ trains only,sometimes with a gap of 2 hour.

OK. That was news to me.

/Bengt

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Casey
Is this news story true?

Yes. The line is at capacity, the airport trains are underused.

Post by Casey
Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.

I have some problems, to understand the reason for dedicating a train for
the airport service, unless demand is so high, that the airport
passengers cause an overcrowding situation.

It is the advantage of railroads, that they can serve a line instead of
points (like airports).


Hans-Joachim

[Dik T. Winter]

...

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Casey
Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.

I have some problems, to understand the reason for dedicating a train for
the airport service, unless demand is so high, that the airport
passengers cause an overcrowding situation.
It is the advantage of railroads, that they can serve a line instead of
points (like airports).

Demand was already reasonably high even at that time, so a special rail
link to the nearby city was not unreasonable (we talk 1955-1956). For
both Melsbroek (now Zaventem) and Gatwick that was an excellent option
as both airports were closed for a massive rebuild. In both cases it
was (is) an express point-to-point link from airport to city. In other
countries there were already bus point-to-point links for this purpose
(like in the Netherlands since 1919 for Schiphol and Waalhaven airport).
But those were in most cases operated (indirectly) by some airline. Also
Heathrow had a dedicated link (BEA express, operated by London Transport).

But see also the special Lufthansa Airport Service that operated from
1983 to 1993 between Duesseldorf airport and Frankfurt airport with
stops in Duesseldorf, Koeln and Bonn. (They were internally run as
TEE trains, so they had priority over other trains.)

[Lennart Petersen]

Post by Dik T. Winter
...

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Casey
Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.

I have some problems, to understand the reason for dedicating a train for
the airport service, unless demand is so high, that the airport
passengers cause an overcrowding situation.
It is the advantage of railroads, that they can serve a line instead of
points (like airports).

Demand was already reasonably high even at that time, so a special rail
link to the nearby city was not unreasonable (we talk 1955-1956). For
both Melsbroek (now Zaventem) and Gatwick that was an excellent option
as both airports were closed for a massive rebuild. In both cases it
was (is) an express point-to-point link from airport to city. In other
countries there were already bus point-to-point links for this purpose
(like in the Netherlands since 1919 for Schiphol and Waalhaven airport).
But those were in most cases operated (indirectly) by some airline. Also
Heathrow had a dedicated link (BEA express, operated by London Transport).
But see also the special Lufthansa Airport Service that operated from
1983 to 1993 between Duesseldorf airport and Frankfurt airport with
stops in Duesseldorf, Koeln and Bonn. (They were internally run as
TEE trains, so they had priority over other trains.)

There was also a Stuttgart Hbf-Frankfurt Flughafen service.
The train was painted in Lufthansa grey and yellow colour.
A nice service as there was always a set of coaches waiting for passengers
at Stuttgart Hbf.
The loco, a 103, arrived with one set and then,after shunting ,departed
with the waiting set.
In theory they wasn't an airport express but an air service itself as they
replaced airplane connections and air tickets only were valid (as I can
remember )

[Ulf Kutzner]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
I have some problems, to understand the reason for dedicating a train for
the airport service, unless demand is so high, that the airport
passengers cause an overcrowding situation.

You do not want to use a Roissy - Paris stoptrain with valuables.

Regards, ULF

[Casey]

Post by Ulf Kutzner

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
I have some problems, to understand the reason for dedicating
a train for the airport service, unless demand is so high, that the
airport passengers cause an overcrowding situation.

You do not want to use a Roissy - Paris stoptrain with valuables.

Please elaborate. Does this train run through high crime stations?
Or is this routing known for brazen thieves who will grab luggage if
it is left unattended for only a few seconds?


Casey

[P.L.Guillemin]

Post by Casey

Post by Ulf Kutzner

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
I have some problems, to understand the reason for dedicating
a train for the airport service, unless demand is so high, that the
airport passengers cause an overcrowding situation.

You do not want to use a Roissy - Paris stoptrain with valuables.

Please elaborate. Does this train run through high crime stations?

Yes, RER B crosses some of the worst-off areas in France...

If in doubt, opt for Roissybus (of RATP): safe, relatively fast (40min, but
30min off-peak), good room to store your luggage, with arrival at Opera, a
very central area. Fares are even cheaper than on RER B.

Air France coaches are more comfortable, yet deerer. They bring you either
to Etoile/Porte Maillot (not so central) or to Gare de Lyon and Gare
Montparnasse.

Post by Casey
Or is this routing known for brazen thieves who will grab luggage if
it is left unattended for only a few seconds?

Well, this kind of people can also grab attended luggage. Tourists from the
Far East are reputedly the easiest target...


Best regards

Phil

[Stanislas de Kertanguy]

"Well, this kind of people can also grab attended luggage. "
I travel nearly everyday on this line. The *biggest* annoyance, albeit
very frequent, are Ukrainian deaf people trying to sell plastic
lighters.

Serious crimes do happen on this line, and on others of the Parisian
network, but please Phil, be honest enough to acknowledge that the risk
of being a victim of a band of savages who rape children and eat their
mothers, or the reverse, is ridiculous. Even the risk of being robbed:
it is lower than the one of being crooked by a taxi driver who charges
you £60 to go to Paris...

Worst-off area which happens to be a place of living for some 2,000,000
people, most of them earning the minimum wage or even less. You will
surely forgive them for having the insolence of living nearby the line
connecting Paris and its airport... and the insolence of needing
shuttles TOO.

(this "worst-off" situation has led ADP, the public authority of Paris
Airports, to demand - and obtain - direct trains from Paris to Roissy,
that interfere with the omnibus walks and save no time).

Roissybus is cheap but very uncomfortable. And 40 minutes *with low
traffic*.

The cheapest are still the RATP lines 350 / 351... but they take longer.

Regards

Stan

Post by P.L.Guillemin

Post by Casey

Post by Ulf Kutzner

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
I have some problems, to understand the reason for dedicating
a train for the airport service, unless demand is so high, that the
airport passengers cause an overcrowding situation.

You do not want to use a Roissy - Paris stoptrain with valuables.

Please elaborate. Does this train run through high crime stations?

Yes, RER B crosses some of the worst-off areas in France...
If in doubt, opt for Roissybus (of RATP): safe, relatively fast (40min, but
30min off-peak), good room to store your luggage, with arrival at Opera, a
very central area. Fares are even cheaper than on RER B.
Air France coaches are more comfortable, yet deerer. They bring you either
to Etoile/Porte Maillot (not so central) or to Gare de Lyon and Gare
Montparnasse.

Post by Casey
Or is this routing known for brazen thieves who will grab luggage if
it is left unattended for only a few seconds?

Well, this kind of people can also grab attended luggage. Tourists from the
Far East are reputedly the easiest target...
Best regards
Phil

[P.L.Guillemin]

Post by Stanislas de Kertanguy
Serious crimes do happen on this line, and on others of the Parisian
network, but please Phil, be honest enough to acknowledge that the risk
of being a victim of a band of savages who rape children and eat their
mothers,

Probably not in the trains. But don't loose from sight that Roissy services
run though areas where the Algerian Family Code 1982 reportedly tends to
override French Laws...
If you look French or at least Caucasian, you're unlikely to be robbed when
travelling on this line in the afternoon.

But think of all those newly-arrived tourists from the Far East. They have
to cope with a huge jet-lag, have little command French (if any), come from
low-crime areas (thence fewer vigilant...), and are usually well-loaded. All
that makes them very easy targets.

Post by Stanislas de Kertanguy
(this "worst-off" situation has led ADP, the public authority of Paris
Airports, to demand - and obtain - direct trains from Paris to Roissy,
that interfere with the omnibus walks and save no time).

I admit that an extensive timetable recast would be needed there...

RERB provides a poor service on Paris-CDG, and isn't what one would
recommend to those stepping down in France for the very first time...

Post by Stanislas de Kertanguy
Roissybus is cheap but very uncomfortable. And 40 minutes *with low
traffic*.

Well, it took me some 30min, when leaving CDG1 at 09:00pm or so. But it
would take 10min more from CDG2
Seats on Roissybus are OK, very comparable to those of MI79 sets.

For better comfort, AF Coaches are there...

Post by Stanislas de Kertanguy
The cheapest are still the RATP lines 350 / 351... but they take longer.

Much longer...


Best regards

Phil

[Graeme Wall]

In message <41e39384$0$6382$***@news.wanadoo.fr>
"P.L.Guillemin" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

Post by P.L.Guillemin
But think of all those newly-arrived tourists from the Far East. They have
to cope with a huge jet-lag, have little command French (if any), come from
low-crime areas (thence fewer vigilant...), and are usually well-loaded.
All that makes them very easy targets.

You think the far east is a low crime area?????

I've taken the train from CDG into Paris and back several times and have
never come across any problems.

[Phil Richards]

Post by Casey
And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.

Roma (Fiumicino) through to Termini is a dedicated (non-stop) service which
AFAIK is 1st Class only.

[Dik T. Winter]

Post by Casey
..... blah, blah .....
The airport was the first in the world to pioneer a dedicated rail express.
..... blah, blah .....
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2004/12/1102456753.html
Is this news story true? Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express?

I have no idea. When was the rail service started? I know that the
service from Brussels to Melsbroek was started in 1955. O, well, I
found it. Gatwick rail services started in 1956. So, no, certainly
not the first. (These are both official opening years...) See:
<http://www.airport-parking-gatwick-uk.co.uk/gatwick-airport/gatwick-airport-history.html>
and: <http://www.airportmediation.be/nl/airport_01.html>.

[Lennart Petersen]

Post by Casey
..... blah, blah .....
The airport was the first in the world to pioneer a dedicated rail express.
..... blah, blah .....
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2004/12/1102456753.html
Is this news story true? Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.
Casey

Except for Stockholm and Vienna you'll find Heathrow, Oslo Gardermoen,
Gatwick,Rome and Milano Malpensa all having a dedicated airport rail
express.
If that's now an advantage at all.
In Stockholm the Aex "Arlanda express" is the ,second to Tokyo Narita, most
expensive airport train in the world (180SEK one-way) resulting in a low
marketshare.
The daily market (from year 2000) is divided in :
private car 29000
bus 14000
train 8000
In Copenhagen the dedicated airport busses ceased to run just a few months
after the inauguration of the rail connection.

[Casey]

Post by Lennart Petersen
In Stockholm the Aex "Arlanda express" is the ,second to Tokyo
Narita, most expensive airport train in the world (180SEK one-way)
resulting in a low marketshare.

There are only three choices from Arlanda to Central Station, right?
Arlanda Express, bus, and taxi? The bus is reasonably-priced, I seem
to remember, but taxis are outrageously-priced. I know someone
who paid something like 150 USD from the airport to a hotel in
Stockholm (the taxis are not regulated, I know). The express train
is expensive, but it sure beats the price for a taxi!

Also, I must admit, the airport trains are less stressful for an American
traveler arriving in Europe. After an 8-10 hour flight, it is so much
easier to walk a short distance to a train within the terminal, than to
walk outside and try to determine which bus to take. Even though
the trains are expensive, I will always ride the train in Vienna and
Stockholm. The fact that the trains have only one stop means that
a sleep-deprived traveler need not worry about which stop to use.


Casey

[Henning Makholm]

Post by Casey

Post by Lennart Petersen
In Stockholm the Aex "Arlanda express" is the ,second to Tokyo
Narita, most expensive airport train in the world (180SEK one-way)
resulting in a low marketshare.

There are only three choices from Arlanda to Central Station, right?
Arlanda Express, bus, and taxi?

At least in 2001, many of the ordinary intercity trains between
Stockholm and Uppsala stopped at Arlanda Central. They were much
cheaper than Aex (standard TiM fares plus a small surcharge for use of
the airport station) but also ran less frequently.

[Lennart Petersen]

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Casey

Post by Lennart Petersen
In Stockholm the Aex "Arlanda express" is the ,second to Tokyo
Narita, most expensive airport train in the world (180SEK one-way)
resulting in a low marketshare.

There are only three choices from Arlanda to Central Station, right?
Arlanda Express, bus, and taxi?

At least in 2001, many of the ordinary intercity trains between
Stockholm and Uppsala stopped at Arlanda Central. They were much
cheaper than Aex (standard TiM fares plus a small surcharge for use of
the airport station) but also ran less frequently.

Few remains today and there's a gap of 2 hours between them sometimes.
Indeed they're less expensive, especially so if you pay the longer trip
Stockholm-Uppsala being less expensive than Stockholm-Arlanda C. Although
not officially accepted there are no penalties for doing so. The train
company however must pay a fee for every estimated passenger to/from Arlanda
C.

[Lennart Petersen]

Post by Casey

Post by Lennart Petersen
In Stockholm the Aex "Arlanda express" is the ,second to Tokyo
Narita, most expensive airport train in the world (180SEK one-way)
resulting in a low marketshare.

There are only three choices from Arlanda to Central Station, right?
Arlanda Express, bus, and taxi?

Maybe five. Arlanda express from Arlanda Södra and Arlanda Norra, a few
SJ-trains from Arlanda Central (three stations at the airport and a fourth
planned)
Airport bus, ordinary SL busses to Märsta and the commuter train is the most
inexpensive connection.
Planned is a frequent commuter train Uppsala-Arlanda-Upplands Väsby
connecting with ordinary commuter trains to Stockholm
The bus is reasonably-priced, I seem

Post by Casey
to remember, but taxis are outrageously-priced. I know someone
who paid something like 150 USD from the airport to a hotel in
Stockholm (the taxis are not regulated, I know).

---------------------------------------------
Not complete impossible if the cab is running to the meter and stopps in the
traffic congestion.
Many cabs have fixed prices to/from the airport, typically 395SEK, and the
airport administration being aware of cheated passengers have arranged so
only the big most accepted cab companies are waiting close to the airport
while independent taxi drivers have to wait more remote.
By law the prices must be advertised outside the cab.

The express train

Post by Casey
is expensive, but it sure beats the price for a taxi!

--------------------------
Sure for a single passenger, but also beats with comfort and travel time at
20 min only.

Post by Casey
Also, I must admit, the airport trains are less stressful for an American
traveler arriving in Europe. After an 8-10 hour flight, it is so much
easier to walk a short distance to a train within the terminal, than to
walk outside and try to determine which bus to take. Even though
the trains are expensive, I will always ride the train in Vienna and
Stockholm. The fact that the trains have only one stop means that
a sleep-deprived traveler need not worry about which stop to use.
Casey

----------------
Agree, possibly I'm doing the same thing arriving to a foreign city

[Bengt Österdahl]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:43:17 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"

Post by Lennart Petersen
Many cabs have fixed prices to/from the airport, typically 395SEK, and the
airport administration being aware of cheated passengers have arranged so
only the big most accepted cab companies are waiting close to the airport
while independent taxi drivers have to wait more remote.
By law the prices must be advertised outside the cab.

The fixed price from Arlanda Airport to Stockholm City is 390 SEK.


/Bengt, taxi driver in the being (undergoing training right now)

[Andrew Price]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:37:39 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"

Post by Lennart Petersen
Except for Stockholm and Vienna you'll find Heathrow, Oslo Gardermoen,
Gatwick,Rome and Milano Malpensa all having a dedicated airport rail
express.

Hong Kong, too.

[Lennart Petersen]

Post by Andrew Price
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 01:37:39 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"

Post by Lennart Petersen
Except for Stockholm and Vienna you'll find Heathrow, Oslo Gardermoen,
Gatwick,Rome and Milano Malpensa all having a dedicated airport rail
express.

Hong Kong, too.

Outside Europe ,but then we have Narita express in Tokyo as well.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Lennart Petersen
Except for Stockholm and Vienna you'll find Heathrow, Oslo Gardermoen,
Gatwick,Rome and Milano Malpensa all having a dedicated airport rail
express.

Sure? When Oslo Gardermoen opened, it has had dedicated halfhourly
trains, in 21 minutes to Oslo S.

I don't find these in the current timetable. Instead, there is an hourly
IC Lillehammer - Oslo stopping at Gardermoen, which travels to Oslo S in
26 minutes. Reason for longer travel time is an addditional stop in
Lillestrom. There is also an hourly local. But that's it.

Post by Lennart Petersen
In Stockholm the Aex "Arlanda express" is the ,second to Tokyo Narita, most
expensive airport train in the world (180SEK one-way) resulting in a low
marketshare.
private car 29000
bus 14000
train 8000

For 8000 passengers per day, quite a lot of lines might be happy for this
kind of investment.

Hans-Joachim

[Lennart Petersen]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Lennart Petersen
Except for Stockholm and Vienna you'll find Heathrow, Oslo Gardermoen,
Gatwick,Rome and Milano Malpensa all having a dedicated airport rail
express.

Sure? When Oslo Gardermoen opened, it has had dedicated halfhourly
trains, in 21 minutes to Oslo S.
I don't find these in the current timetable. Instead, there is an hourly
IC Lillehammer - Oslo stopping at Gardermoen, which travels to Oslo S in
26 minutes. Reason for longer travel time is an addditional stop in
Lillestrom. There is also an hourly local. But that's it.

-----------------------------
The dedicated "Flytoget" is running every 15 minute to/from the airport.
It's now an operation independent from NSB
http://www.flytoget.no/default.aspx?id=105

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Lennart Petersen
In Stockholm the Aex "Arlanda express" is the ,second to Tokyo Narita, most
expensive airport train in the world (180SEK one-way) resulting in a low
marketshare.
private car 29000
bus 14000
train 8000

For 8000 passengers per day, quite a lot of lines might be happy for this
kind of investment.
Hans-Joachim

Not so happy if they've invested the amount involved for the Arlanda
connection.
It's an underground line including three stations and prepared for a fourth.
And what's most counting is the low market share leaving so much to the
road.

[Fredrik Staxeng]

Post by Lennart Petersen
In Stockholm the Aex "Arlanda express" is the ,second to Tokyo Narita, most
expensive airport train in the world (180SEK one-way) resulting in a low
marketshare.
private car 29000
bus 14000
train 8000

How many go by taxi?

If they lowered the price to the bus price, they would get most bus
passengers. The bus costs 60 SEK one-way, so

8000 * 180 = 1440000
(14000+8000)*60 = 1320000

Monopoly pricing at work.

[Mike Roebuck]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:42:12 +0100, Fredrik Staxeng

Post by Fredrik Staxeng

Post by Lennart Petersen
In Stockholm the Aex "Arlanda express" is the ,second to Tokyo Narita, most
expensive airport train in the world (180SEK one-way) resulting in a low
marketshare.
private car 29000
bus 14000
train 8000

How many go by taxi?
If they lowered the price to the bus price, they would get most bus
passengers. The bus costs 60 SEK one-way, so
8000 * 180 = 1440000
(14000+8000)*60 = 1320000
Monopoly pricing at work.

The AEx takes 15 minutes, the bus takes 40. You pay for what you get,
and I *always* use the Arlanda Express.

It's based on Heathrow Express - same principle, similar competition
(but I do accept that Arlanda Airport is nowhere as busy as
Heathrow).

[Lennart Petersen]

Post by Mike Roebuck
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:42:12 +0100, Fredrik Staxeng

Post by Fredrik Staxeng

Post by Lennart Petersen
In Stockholm the Aex "Arlanda express" is the ,second to Tokyo Narita, most
expensive airport train in the world (180SEK one-way) resulting in a low
marketshare.
private car 29000
bus 14000
train 8000

How many go by taxi?
If they lowered the price to the bus price, they would get most bus
passengers. The bus costs 60 SEK one-way, so
8000 * 180 = 1440000
(14000+8000)*60 = 1320000
Monopoly pricing at work.

The AEx takes 15 minutes, the bus takes 40. You pay for what you get,
and I *always* use the Arlanda Express.

Aex advertised time is 20 min ,maybe reduced to 19 min.
SJ trains may sometimes do the trip in 17 min.
So 20 min compared with bus 40 min (usually faster than so outside rush
hours).
But that's compared to downtown city. For me being in the north part of
Stockholm the advantage of train over bus is typically 5 or 10 min only.
SJ trains beats in travel time, also loco hauled with max 160km/h, because
they've "soft boggies" and may travel with an overspeed of 30% in the area
close to Stockholm with speed restrictions.
The Aex X3 Alstom trains are conventionally built with max 200km/h without
the possibility to "overspeed".

[Bengt Österdahl]

Post by Fredrik Staxeng
If they lowered the price to the bus price, they would get most bus
passengers. The bus costs 60 SEK one-way, so

Are you talking about the price of a single fare ticket from Stockholm City
to Arlanda Airport? If that's the case, you're not correct.

The price is according to their web-site (http://www.flygbussarna.se):

(I have translated the swedish text)

Return fare adult
170 kr

Single fare adult
89 kr

Children/youth
0 kr up to and including 17 years accompanied by a parent, max 4

Single fare children/youth
59 kr up to and including 17 years not accompanied by a parent

I have ommitted fares for students and retired people and a couple of other
tarifs. There are also a certain addition to the fares at night.


/Bengt

[Fredrik Staxeng]

Post by Bengt Österdahl

Post by Fredrik Staxeng
If they lowered the price to the bus price, they would get most bus
passengers. The bus costs 60 SEK one-way, so

Are you talking about the price of a single fare ticket from Stockholm City
to Arlanda Airport? If that's the case, you're not correct.

That was the price before Arlanda Express started running, wasn't it?
Apparently they found out that they could increase the price.

Post by Bengt Österdahl
Single fare adult
89 kr

Then the calculation becomes

8000 * 180 = 1440000
(14000+8000)*89 = 1958000

which means that more passengers at a lower price could mean more
revenue for Arlanda Express. Probably the 14000 bus passengers include
people traveling from/to other places such as Uppsala, Västerås etc.

[Lennart Petersen]

Post by Fredrik Staxeng

Post by Lennart Petersen
In Stockholm the Aex "Arlanda express" is the ,second to Tokyo Narita, most
expensive airport train in the world (180SEK one-way) resulting in a low
marketshare.
private car 29000
bus 14000
train 8000

How many go by taxi?

Included in the 29000.
My fought, so read "car" in stead of "private car"

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Lennart Petersen
The dedicated "Flytoget" is running every 15 minute to/from the airport.
It's now an operation independent from NSB
http://www.flytoget.no/default.aspx?id=105

So they don't deliver their data, and they don't show up on
reiseauskunft.bahn.de, while the NSB trains do. Bad.


Hans-Joachim

[Phil Richards]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Lennart Petersen
The dedicated "Flytoget" is running every 15 minute to/from the airport.
It's now an operation independent from NSB
http://www.flytoget.no/default.aspx?id=105

So they don't deliver their data, and they don't show up on
reiseauskunft.bahn.de, while the NSB trains do. Bad.

Possibly because it is independant to NSB - the schedules (unsurprisingly)
don't appear on www.nsb.no

Which leads to the question does the data that is supplied to Hafas have to
be channelled through the national railway of each country? Or can any
private outfit in Germany supply data?

[unknown]

Post by Phil Richards
Which leads to the question does the data that is supplied to Hafas have to
be channelled through the national railway of each country? Or can any
private outfit in Germany supply data?

I understood from NMBS that they supply their data into Merits and that
DB/Hacon uses Merits to fill their database. Somewhere in this process
though is a problem: the NMBS data in Hafas are old (= pre-12 december)
and the timetables around Christmas are completely wrong.
So any railway that can feed Merits can feed Hafas.
Eurostar also feed Hafas, but I don't know if this is via ATOC. Eurostar
data in Hafas are also regularly incomplete BTW :-(

Regards,

Rian

[Phil Richards]

Post by unknown
Eurostar also feed Hafas, but I don't know if this is via ATOC. Eurostar
data in Hafas are also regularly incomplete BTW :-(

Again I'm not sure whose responsible, it's probably a joint decision with
all 3 parts with the UK side of the consortium probably holding things
back. Remember in Britain our railway timetables are in a complete mess,
the press have recently had a field day highlighting only a few days ago it
wasn't possible to book seats on many trains in this country for the
Christmas/New Year holiday period because finalised timings hadn't been
delivered from Network Rail.

The latest published E* timetable (printed and on their website) is only
valid from 12 December 2004 to 12 February 2005 yet all the data is
available on the Resarail system until June 2005. This of course does get
amended by a few minutes to cater for re-timings on the British side once
the reservation database is released. I really can't understand why what's
on Resarail doesn't appear on Hafas.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Phil Richards
The latest published E* timetable (printed and on their website) is only
valid from 12 December 2004 to 12 February 2005 yet all the data is
available on the Resarail system until June 2005. This of course does get
amended by a few minutes to cater for re-timings on the British side once
the reservation database is released. I really can't understand why what's
on Resarail doesn't appear on Hafas.

It would be best if the Commission, err, since you are posting from UK:
if the evil bureaucrats in Brussels :-) would require publishing
timetables in a standard computer format.

Meaning: Before they may publish it in their native format or interface
or whatever, they have to put it in some open-standard format into the
Internet at a never-changing place, allowing any timetable site to import
the data.

Hans-Joachim

[unknown]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Phil Richards
The latest published E* timetable (printed and on their website) is only
valid from 12 December 2004 to 12 February 2005 yet all the data is
available on the Resarail system until June 2005. This of course does get
amended by a few minutes to cater for re-timings on the British side once
the reservation database is released. I really can't understand why what's
on Resarail doesn't appear on Hafas.

if the evil bureaucrats in Brussels :-) would require publishing
timetables in a standard computer format.

I understood from Eurostar that data conversion problems were the cause
of their incomplete timetables in Hafas. I only hope they'll now really
solve it.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Meaning: Before they may publish it in their native format or interface
or whatever, they have to put it in some open-standard format into the
Internet at a never-changing place, allowing any timetable site to import
the data.

If I understood correctly, the Merits system is supposed to be fed by
the railways, allowing all railways to use the timetable data in their
own systems.

Regards,

Rian

[Phil Richards]

Post by unknown

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
if the evil bureaucrats in Brussels :-) would require publishing
timetables in a standard computer format.

I understood from Eurostar that data conversion problems were the cause
of their incomplete timetables in Hafas. I only hope they'll now really
solve it.

Data conversion problems. Nice one! I can understand if the format is
different meaning that none the data is compatible with Hafas but I'm
confused as to why the timetables are incomplete. Eurostar run pretty much
the same timetable all year with variations at the weekend. Additional
trains (often slotted in nearer the time) appear around busy holiday
weekends.

If Hafas shows all E* departures but only up to a certain date then that's
probably because schedules aren't 100% confirmed. However I don't see the
problem with supplying indicative timetables which get corrected nearer the
time. The main reason for the full 6 month timetables not being available
is no doubt the delay in Network Rail in confirming weekend engineering
work details.

[unknown]

Post by Phil Richards

Post by unknown

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
if the evil bureaucrats in Brussels :-) would require publishing
timetables in a standard computer format.

I understood from Eurostar that data conversion problems were the cause
of their incomplete timetables in Hafas. I only hope they'll now really
solve it.

Data conversion problems. Nice one! I can understand if the format is
different meaning that none the data is compatible with Hafas but I'm
confused as to why the timetables are incomplete. Eurostar run pretty much
the same timetable all year with variations at the weekend. Additional
trains (often slotted in nearer the time) appear around busy holiday
weekends.

E* timetable changed on 5 September. After that date, the trains with
changed timetables had disappeared... I don't know what the current
status is.

Regards,

Rian

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Phil Richards
The latest published E* timetable (printed and on their website) is only
valid from 12 December 2004 to 12 February 2005 yet all the data is
available on the Resarail system until June 2005. This of course does get
amended by a few minutes to cater for re-timings on the British side once
the reservation database is released. I really can't understand why what's
on Resarail doesn't appear on Hafas.

if the evil bureaucrats in Brussels :-) would require publishing
timetables in a standard computer format.

That will get the UKIP (acceptable face of the BNP) in a tizz.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Meaning: Before they may publish it in their native format or interface
or whatever, they have to put it in some open-standard format into the
Internet at a never-changing place, allowing any timetable site to import
the data.

[Dik T. Winter]

Post by Phil Richards

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Lennart Petersen
The dedicated "Flytoget" is running every 15 minute to/from the airport.
It's now an operation independent from NSB
http://www.flytoget.no/default.aspx?id=105

So they don't deliver their data, and they don't show up on
reiseauskunft.bahn.de, while the NSB trains do. Bad.

Possibly because it is independant to NSB - the schedules (unsurprisingly)
don't appear on www.nsb.no
Which leads to the question does the data that is supplied to Hafas have to
be channelled through the national railway of each country? Or can any
private outfit in Germany supply data?

And perhaps they cater for airline passengers who in general will not go
to bahn.de to get the information as it will most likely be provided by
the airline?

[Phil Richards]

Post by Dik T. Winter
And perhaps they cater for airline passengers who in general will not go
to bahn.de to get the information as it will most likely be provided by
the airline?

Along with information sites, tourist information about the city itself.

Possibly some people in Germany might look first to the DB site for
transport connections in other countries. Those with even a basic
understanding of using Google etc. would probably end up finding the
official Flytoget site in a matter of seconds which is infinitely more
important to the operator than having their schedule information accessible
though DB's site.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Phil Richards
Which leads to the question does the data that is supplied to Hafas have to
be channelled through the national railway of each country? Or can any
private outfit in Germany supply data?

Yes.

There has been a problem with Connex long distance trains, but AFAIK,
that's history.


Hans-Joachim

[Ulf Kutzner]

Post by Lennart Petersen

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Lennart Petersen
Except for Stockholm and Vienna you'll find Heathrow, Oslo Gardermoen,
Gatwick,Rome and Milano Malpensa all having a dedicated airport rail
express.

Sure? When Oslo Gardermoen opened, it has had dedicated halfhourly
trains, in 21 minutes to Oslo S.
I don't find these in the current timetable. Instead, there is an hourly
IC Lillehammer - Oslo stopping at Gardermoen, which travels to Oslo S in
26 minutes. Reason for longer travel time is an addditional stop in
Lillestrom. There is also an hourly local. But that's it.

-----------------------------
The dedicated "Flytoget" is running every 15 minute to/from the airport.
It's now an operation independent from NSB
http://www.flytoget.no/default.aspx?id=105

Now, they may lose slots in Oslo city railway tunnel,
needed for longer trains that can be used with normal tickets.

In German:
https://www.lok-report.de/news/europa/item/40021-norwegen-keine-neue-vereinbarung-mit-flytoget.html

[B.Rumary]

Post by Casey
Is this news story true? Was Gatwick really the first airport to have a
dedicated rail express? And while we're on the subject, which cities
in Europe have a dedicated rail express from the airport to downtown?
I know of Stockholm and Vienna. What others? Lots of cities like
Munich have S-Bahn connections but they are not dedicated.

The DB had a dedicated express train service connection between Köln and
Frankfurt/Main airports, which I think preceded Gatwick. However that was
airport to airport, _not_ airport to city.

Brian Rumary, England

http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm

[Ulf Kutzner]

Post by B.Rumary
The DB had a dedicated express train service connection between Köln and
Frankfurt/Main airports, which I think preceded Gatwick. However that was
airport to airport, _not_ airport to city.

Err, at that time, there was no airport station in CGN.

Regards, ULF

[tobias b köhler]

Post by Ulf Kutzner

Post by B.Rumary
The DB had a dedicated express train service connection between Köln and
Frankfurt/Main airports, which I think preceded Gatwick. However that was
airport to airport, _not_ airport to city.

Err, at that time, there was no airport station in CGN.

Wasn't it Düsseldorf Airport - Köln Hbf - Bonn Hbf - Frankfurt Airport?

The Lufthansa Airport Express was a secondary use for the legendary
class 403/404 units of the early 1970s, designed to be a new electric
intercity train (1st class only), but then the DB decided to operate all
IC with locomotives and coaches instead (cheaper, especially at the
foreseeable length of IC'79 trains). The prototypes (three 4-car trains)
are standing somewhere at Putlitz (??) and rotting away .... though with
some new paint and a good cleaning they could be brought to a
presentable state (getting them in running condition would be much more
costly though).

[Klaus von der Heyde]

Post by tobias b köhler
Wasn't it Düsseldorf Airport - Köln Hbf - Bonn Hbf - Frankfurt Airport?

Yes, and to Frankfurt Hbf, afaik. That were the old airport stations
in Düsseldorf and Frankfurt, too, immediately under the airport
terminal buildings. Today, they are used by S-bahn trains.

Post by tobias b köhler
The prototypes (three 4-car trains)

There were only three of them, which made them useless for hourly
long-distance intercity service.

Klaus

[tobias b köhler]

Post by Klaus von der Heyde

Post by tobias b köhler
The prototypes (three 4-car trains)

There were only three of them, which made them useless for hourly
long-distance intercity service.

The advantage of these units, compared with today's passenger EMUs: easy
reconfiguration thanks to automatic couplers and self-contained systems
in each car.

What DB could have done: Order them as 7-car trains with both 1st and
2nd class, operate two trains together or form units of different length
if needed. Perhaps they could even be upgraded to an airtight 250 km/h
version once the new lines were finished, and the ICE history would have
looked different.

But of course it was cheaper to use TEE and express cars from the 1960s,
upgraded to 200 km/h, and add a few re-orders from the 1970s as well as
new 2nd class open cars, especially since class 103 was suitable for
such services. And some of that rolling stock is still in service after
more than 40 years of faithful service (though the 103 is not used
regularly anymore).

[Klaus von der Heyde]

Post by tobias b köhler
The advantage of these units, compared with today's passenger EMUs: easy
reconfiguration thanks to automatic couplers and self-contained systems
in each car.

This was then seen as too complicated to be efficient. I like the
concept, as there is no performance penalty for longer trains. But
there are many parts to be serviced.

Post by tobias b köhler
Perhaps they could even be upgraded to an airtight 250 km/h
version once the new lines were finished, and the ICE history would have
looked different.

The design of the 403/404 started well before high speed lines were
even considered. I think, with the technology of the late 1960s and
early 1970s, it seemed not possible to put the equipment needed for
high power output needed for high speed running under the car floor.
There were the japanese HSTs, but their profile is somewhat wider
than the european loading gauge.

Post by tobias b köhler
But of course it was cheaper to use TEE and express cars from the 1960s,
upgraded to 200 km/h, and add a few re-orders from the 1970s as well as
new 2nd class open cars, especially since class 103 was suitable for
such services.

This economic decision was not as bad as it seems. The IC79 concept
was very successful, and made rail travel over long distances more
attractive (and even competetive to other means of transportation).
The limitation to 200 km/h allowed operation over existing tracks,
with only grade separation and improved signal equipment necessary
(both also required for high speed EMU service).

As much as I like EMUs, I see the advantages of loco hauled trains.
Multiple 403/404 operations would not allow to walk through the
entire length of the train, with probably requiring extra conductors
and an extra bar/restaurant car.
The "Koploper" concept is probably not suited for speeds exceeding
160 km/h...

Klaus

[tobias b köhler]

Post by Klaus von der Heyde
The design of the 403/404 started well before high speed lines were
even considered.

The new lines Hannover - Würzburg and Mannheim - Stuttgart were planned
since the 1970s, along with a number of upgraded lines. Initially nobody
thought of going faster than 200 km/h, the original idea was to have
mixed traffic as on the other mainlines, just a bit more speed and density.

Post by Klaus von der Heyde
I think, with the technology of the late 1960s and
early 1970s, it seemed not possible to put the equipment needed for
high power output needed for high speed running under the car floor.
There were the japanese HSTs, but their profile is somewhat wider
than the european loading gauge.

Japanese profile is wider and less rounded in the roof area. But going
from 200 to 250 km/h isn't such a great step ....

Post by Klaus von der Heyde
This economic decision was not as bad as it seems. The IC79 concept
was very successful, and made rail travel over long distances more
attractive (and even competetive to other means of transportation).
The limitation to 200 km/h allowed operation over existing tracks,
with only grade separation and improved signal equipment necessary
(both also required for high speed EMU service).

You don't need a limitation to operate on existing tracks, TGVs are
doing fine on curvy lines in the French Alps. But back in the 1970s, the
DB had only very few sections of more than 160 km/h (so in the first
years, when trains were first class only, there was even a special
loudspeaker announcement "We have now reached a speed of 200 km/h").

Post by Klaus von der Heyde
As much as I like EMUs, I see the advantages of loco hauled trains.
Multiple 403/404 operations would not allow to walk through the
entire length of the train, with probably requiring extra conductors
and an extra bar/restaurant car.

That's right, but I once thought about a concept where train 1+2 comes
from A, train 3+4 comes from B, they meet in C, half-units 1 and 3 are
swapped, train 3+2 continues to D and train 1+4 to E .... that way you
wouldn't need regular cabs where the trains are split, just automatic
couplers and a stand for a shunting worker.

One advantage of a hypothetical EMU concept of IC'79 would have been: No
need of changing locomotives in terminal stations Frankfurt (M),
Stuttgart, München. (Push-pull trains were already common for local
trains, but nobody seemed to dare going faster than 140 km/h with them
.... there was also a limit of how many axles can be pushed.) But for
international trains, multi-system trains would have been necessary (the
technology was there, if you look at the Swiss RAe TEE II units).

[P.L.Guillemin]

Post by tobias b köhler

Post by Klaus von der Heyde
The design of the 403/404 started well before high speed lines were
even considered.

The new lines Hannover - Würzburg and Mannheim - Stuttgart were planned
since the 1970s,

IIRC, works for the nightmarish Fortstunnel began round 1973, while those
for Hannover-Wurzburg started also at the same time with the 4-tracking on
Hannover-Laatzen (completed in 1979 IIRC).


along with a number of upgraded lines. Initially nobody

Post by tobias b köhler
thought of going faster than 200 km/h,

Yes, although it was planned to order more up-to-date cars and locos to
allow for an upgrade to 230...


the original idea was to have

Post by tobias b köhler
mixed traffic as on the other mainlines, just a bit more speed and density.

Yes, as on Italian Dirretissime.

Post by tobias b köhler
Japanese profile is wider and less rounded in the roof area. But going
from 200 to 250 km/h isn't such a great step ....

Well, it was regarded as a big leap forward at that time.

Post by tobias b köhler
You don't need a limitation to operate on existing tracks, TGVs are
doing fine on curvy lines in the French Alps.

Not without pain, though.

Mixing uses on HSL and conventional lines always means extra costs.

That's why RENFE has decided that 120s and 121s ought not to be specified
for any faster than 250, although CAF and Talgo could have offered something
tailored for 300.

CAF still dreams of a 300+, variable-gauge and tilting EMU (kinda upgraded
120 with SIBI), but it will have to make their economic case first.

Fiat and Siemens were also eyeing tilting HSTs suitable for 300-330 in the
late-90s, but this has gone off the agenda, also on economic grounds.


But back in the 1970s, the

Post by tobias b köhler
DB had only very few sections of more than 160 km/h (so in the first
years, when trains were first class only, there was even a special
loudspeaker announcement "We have now reached a speed of 200 km/h").

You can nowadays a hear a similar kind of announcement (300km/h-186mph)on
Eurostars bound for the Continent, once you run over the Medway Viaduct...

Post by tobias b köhler
That's right, but I once thought about a concept where train 1+2 comes
from A, train 3+4 comes from B, they meet in C, half-units 1 and 3 are
swapped, train 3+2 continues to D and train 1+4 to E .... that way you
wouldn't need regular cabs where the trains are split,

or maybe with BR Southeast/Talgo 7-style cabs...

Post by tobias b köhler
One advantage of a hypothetical EMU concept of IC'79 would have been: No
need of changing locomotives in terminal stations Frankfurt (M),
Stuttgart, München. (Push-pull trains were already common for local
trains, but nobody seemed to dare going faster than 140 km/h with them

In 1972, SNCF began to operate pull-push formations at 160, with a very
basic USI driving-trailer, on Paris-Orléans-Tours shuttles (now
"Aqualys")...

When the completion of the Paris-Brussels electrification was in sight in
the early-60s, the French and the Belgians were first thinking of short
pull-push (couplable) formations, with a 3-voltage, upgraded version of
Class 9400s locos...


Best regards

Phil

[Ulf Kutzner]

Post by P.L.Guillemin
When the completion of the Paris-Brussels electrification was in sight in
the early-60s, the French and the Belgians were first thinking of short
pull-push (couplable) formations, with a 3-voltage, upgraded version of
Class 9400s locos...

Why didn't the make such trains?

Regards, ULF

[P.L.Guillemin]

Post by Ulf Kutzner

Post by P.L.Guillemin
When the completion of the Paris-Brussels electrification was in sight in
the early-60s, the French and the Belgians were first thinking of short
pull-push (couplable) formations, with a 3-voltage, upgraded version of
Class 9400s locos...

Why didn't the make such trains?

Too complex.

And fixed formations were not that popular at SNCF at that time...


Best regards

Phil

[Dik T. Winter]

Post by P.L.Guillemin

Post by Ulf Kutzner

Post by P.L.Guillemin
When the completion of the Paris-Brussels electrification was in sight

in

Post by Ulf Kutzner

Post by P.L.Guillemin
the early-60s, the French and the Belgians were first thinking of short
pull-push (couplable) formations, with a 3-voltage, upgraded version of
Class 9400s locos...

Why didn't the make such trains?

Too complex.

I think SNCF lacked experience at that time with multi-voltage trainsets.
SNCB had already used it (with NS) since 1957 (Amsterdam - Brussels).
[There is a reason why this coincides with the start of the TEE. F.Q. den
Hollander, at that time executive officer of the NS.]

Also, in the sixties it was already clear that couplable trainsets were
not really the way to go, again, witness the Amsterdam - Brussels line,
where in 1971 the sets were replaced by (more flexible) pull-push, but
non-couplable, trainsets. (NS made much the same error quite a bit later
with its couplable short pull-push trainsets. Coupling/uncoupling in
many cases lead to problems.)

[P.L.Guillemin]

Post by Dik T. Winter

Post by P.L.Guillemin

Post by Ulf Kutzner

Post by P.L.Guillemin
When the completion of the Paris-Brussels electrification was in sight

in

Post by Ulf Kutzner

Post by P.L.Guillemin
the early-60s, the French and the Belgians were first thinking of short
pull-push (couplable) formations, with a 3-voltage, upgraded version of
Class 9400s locos...

Why didn't the make such trains?

Too complex.

I think SNCF lacked experience at that time with multi-voltage trainsets.

Those PBA trainsets would have actually featured a conventional loco at the
one end, and a driving trailer at the other end.

Mind you, 2 such 9400-style locos were built as prototypes in the early-60s
(Class 30000).

Post by Dik T. Winter
Also, in the sixties it was already clear that couplable trainsets were
not really the way to go,

Debatable.

SNCF began to operate RGPs in 1954, and on some trains, you could see quite
complex formations. On the newly-introduced "Arbalète" TEE, you would
usually have:

2 Green RGP1+ 1 extra trailer (Green, too), for Paris-Basel
and 1 Red (TEE) RGP1 set, for Paris-Zurich

So, 7 cars in total.

RGPs were broadly used in the late-50s/early-60s, without raising any
concern.

TARs and Bugatti DMUs had also made their case since the late-30s.


Best regards

Phil

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Klaus von der Heyde
The "Koploper" concept is probably not suited for speeds exceeding
160 km/h...

Why not?

It's possible to make something like that quite aerodynamic.
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

(Admittedly, the pictured train is restricted to 130 km/h for other
reasons.)



Hans-Joachim

[tobias b köhler]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Klaus von der Heyde
The "Koploper" concept is probably not suited for speeds exceeding
160 km/h...

Why not?
It's possible to make something like that quite aerodynamic.

Apparently Alexander Neumeister had something like that on the drawing
board in the early development of what became the 411/415 ICT units
(back then called IR/IC-NT). It was not realized -just like the
"Settebello" variant with high-up cab above the observation lounge ....

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by tobias b köhler
Apparently Alexander Neumeister had something like that on the drawing
board in the early development of what became the 411/415 ICT units
(back then called IR/IC-NT). It was not realized -just like the
"Settebello" variant with high-up cab above the observation lounge ....

Are these documented somewhere?

Hans-Joachim

[tobias b köhler]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by tobias b köhler
Apparently Alexander Neumeister had something like that on the drawing
board in the early development of what became the 411/415 ICT units
(back then called IR/IC-NT). It was not realized -just like the
"Settebello" variant with high-up cab above the observation lounge ....

Are these documented somewhere?

I think some of the "100 Jahre ICE" special magazines now sold in the
shops have drawings of the variants not ordered.....

[Sven Manias]

Post by tobias b köhler

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by tobias b köhler
Apparently Alexander Neumeister had something like that on the drawing
board in the early development of what became the 411/415 ICT units
(back then called IR/IC-NT). It was not realized -just like the
"Settebello" variant with high-up cab above the observation lounge ....

Are these documented somewhere?

I think some of the "100 Jahre ICE" special magazines now sold in the
shops have drawings of the variants not ordered.....

We'll have to wait for those some 80 years more. :-)

The magazines (plural? I've only seen one so far) say "20 Jahre ICE",
which refers to the original InterCityExperimental prototype, class
410.0, from 1985.

Regards,
Sven

[tobias b köhler]

Post by Sven Manias
We'll have to wait for those some 80 years more. :-)

Yes, I was exaggerating a little. Except if you see the 3-phase electric
test trains of Zossen in the early 20th century, first time a train went
faster than 200 km/h and faster than any steam locomotives ever could go
(without looking at some unconfirmed american records), as early
predecessors of the ICE.

Post by Sven Manias
The magazines (plural? I've only seen one so far) say "20 Jahre ICE",
which refers to the original InterCityExperimental prototype, class
410.0, from 1985.

As I remember, the power cars were completed in the middle of that year,
the whole train in december.

(What became of the rolling stock? The ICE-V is out of service, part of
the train is in Minden, but the rest ....?)

[Ulf Kutzner]

Post by Klaus von der Heyde
Yes, and to Frankfurt Hbf, afaik. That were the old airport stations
in Düsseldorf and Frankfurt, too, immediately under the airport
terminal buildings. Today, they are used by S-bahn trains.

And an overnighter to Vienna. I guess, the DDm has no clearance for the
new airport line/station.

Regards, ULF