Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
As case study of how things can be bungled up elsewhere, I write down some criticisms of France's TGV.

The number one criticism should be not one of the TGV itself, but government priorities. I blamed the Chirac government, but the bulk of the prior decade wasn't ideal either. The first leg of the TGV Est will be opened on 10 June -- but that's a decade late compared to riginal planning, and the second leg across the Vosges toward Strasbourg receded into misty future. The line towards Bordeaux and Toulouse is to be built only in stages and only after 2010, the total delay will be more like two decades. A line South towards the Massif Central, either as true high-sapeed or an upgrade for tilt trains, is now even off the table -- while the beautiful but high-way-carrying Millau bridge completed an expensive highway. A lot of highwqays have been built in central France, including in the Loire valley, where a cross line (to reduce the centralised nature of the network) wasn't even proposed.

The number two criticism is tunnels. TGV lines were built on the cheap by sparing tunnels almost completely. Only the TGV Atlantique connection into Paris and the TGV Mediterranée entry into Marseille have significant tunnels. This policy has two negative consequences.

On one hand, projects that really drag are those where tunnels are unavoidable, and they drag more than in other countries. Witness the ever-stretching Lyons-Turin project. Witness the TGV Rhin-Rhône: on the easiest, firsat to be built Northeast branch (towards Mulhouse) of its three branches, a single laughable less than two km long tunnel was treated as significant challenge, while the Northwest branch (across Dijon towards Paris) will not be built in 15 years due to the need of a relatively short cross-city tunnel under Dijon.

The other negative consequence is indicated by the above example of Dijon: to cut costs, TGV line planners had the idea to bypass cities and build stations out in the green, rather than build cross-city tunnels (as now built in Florence and Bologna on the Italian network, or in Barcelona in Spain) or parallel bypass and city access lines (as say at Zaragoza and Lerida in Spain). So there goes the no-travel-to-the-airport-time advantage of high-speed rail, high-speed rail is connected to car culture, and that not with that much success (these out in the nothing stations are often lightly frequented).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jan 23rd, 2007 at 02:53:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why the delays and the avoidance of tunnels?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue Jan 23rd, 2007 at 03:39:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The delays: other priorities, picking rail projects first when plucking budget holes. The tunnels: as I implied, originally cost-cutting, now lack of experience with modern rail tunnel projects (they should hire Spanish or Swiss project managers).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jan 23rd, 2007 at 06:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought the green stations were only built for political reasons. When the TGV planners got tired of small cities bickering for the station and decided to screw them all. That's what happened with Haute-Picardie and with the plans for the LGV Bretagne.
by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Tue Jan 23rd, 2007 at 08:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Another example of foot-dragging by Chirac's governments is the once-firmly-planned high-speed link between Bordeaux and the Mediterranean (Narbonne) via Toulouse, that has been left dangling in spite of repeated demands from the Midi-Pyrénées region.

The present government backs a plan for a second international airport for Toulouse on the grounds that the first will not be able to handle air traffic in the future. Toulouse is on the "TGV" map richardk provided, in the blue 5-6 hour zone. That is, the train you get on in Toulouse is a true TGV, but runs as a regular express train for more than half the trip to Paris via Bordeaux. That takes 5h 20mn. So the Toulouse-Paris (700 km/440 miles) air shuttle is hugely used. Circular argument by which the authorities justify the need for a new airport...

A full TGV link would put Toulouse at 3h 30mn from Paris and would probably cut air shuttle traffic by half.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 24th, 2007 at 02:13:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Little correction: a full and direct TGV link (via Angoulême) could put it even at 2h30m, if high-speed connection is via Bordeaux (as currently planned for 2019...) then 3h, but opening of new sections between Tours and Bordeaux would already suffice for 3h30m.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jan 24th, 2007 at 09:44:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you give me a reference for that? It's the first time I've heard it, the 3h 30 figure is always given...
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jan 24th, 2007 at 12:36:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
RFF itself gives "a bit more than 3h" after Bordeaux-Toulouse is built. I don't remember where I read 2h30m for a direct route to Toulouse, but the figure can be supported by simple calculation. (The distance would be somewhat less than to Marseille, and line speeds higher throughout. A 280 km/h travel speed is quite possible, even is we remain conservative and expect only 320 km/h top speed with accelerations as today: TGVs achieve 260 km/h average on a much shorter distance between two stations of the TGV Mediterranée.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jan 24th, 2007 at 01:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series