New High-Speed Rail (350~450 Km/h) proposal between Lille, Luxembourg and Bruchsal's Rollenberg junction (Germany)

[zwk500]

This single line would optimize traveling to and from Luxembourg "killing 6 Birds with one Stone", Luxembourg would finally be well connected with the surrounding capitals, and at the same time allow the third most visited city in the world to tighten the time gap of travelers from the german speaking countries.

Again, Luxembourg is the size of York or Maastricht. It is 10 times smaller than Birmingham or Manchester, or Cologne. It should really be a province of Belgium rather than a separate country, and if it were you'd never suggest trying to route all UK-Germany traffic through the town, but bypassing it.
If Munich-Frankfurt has a good case, are DB pursuing it independently?

The Lyon-Turin High speed project is 40% funded by EU, 25% France, and 35% Italy

A trans-alpine tunnel connecting Paris to Rome is a completely different situation. That's a strategic gap in the network, not cutting off a corner.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

If this were build, setting up border controls at Luxembourg would be an option; Passengers from further afield could change at Luxembourg, and given the size and importance Luxembourg would probably generate enough passengers to have a service.

This project would allow several trains from german speaking countries to travel to Brussels and Amsterdam in a Flight competing manner. And Luxembourg would be thus a changing station for those heading to London, having there a shuttle every 30 minutes and Juxtaposed border control (at least until a better option shows up)

A new underground station for a town of 130,000 people in a deep gorge? Even Luxembourg's financial industry would struggle to justify that.

It wouldn´t be a huge station like Stuttgart 21, it would be more like a subway station (2 Large diameter parallel tunnels drilled by a very-large TBM would do the trick), 4x 470m platforms, (2x 10m island platforms), on the molds of the new station at the Stuttgart airport. The current luxembourg station would continue to operate normally. The underground station would only be for high-speed trains.

not cutting off a corner.

The fastest way today from Stuttgart to St. Pancras Station takes 6:34h, if my calculations are right, this project could allow trips as fast as 2:50h. At least half as fast as today. That doesn´t seem like cutting a corner to me, more like building a wormhole


Financing could come, as usual, from the European transport agency (~35%), from the railway companies that would operate on the route (~5%) (DB, ÖBB, SNCB, SNCF, Trenitalia, CFL, Eurostar, Getlink, CFF, Regiojet, etc), countries not members of the European Union that would benefit from the project (10%) (UK 6%, Switzerland 3% and Lichtenstein 1%), cities in which the trains would pass (5% (Possible to take population proportionally into consideration)), their states (20%) and respective countries (20%). Therefore, in France (4.44%) there would be the cities of Maubeuge (0.55%) and Fumay (0.55%) in the states of Hauts-de-France (2.22%) and Grand Est (2.22 %). In belgium (6.66%) the trains would pass in the cities of Couvin (0.55%), in the state of Namur (2.22%) and in the cities of Bertrix (0.55%) and Arlon (0.55% ) in the state of Luxembourg (4.44%). In the Country of Luxembourg (2.22%), it would pass only in the city of Luxembourg (0.55%), in the district of Luxembourg (2.22%). And in Germany (6.66%) in the cities of Merzig (0.55%) and Homburg (0.55%) in the state of Saarland (4.44%) and in the city of Landau (0.55%) in the state from Rhineland-Palatinate (2.22%).

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m late to this, sorry.

I think the estimates for journey times are very optimistic, partly be because of average speed expectations, annd partly because the line would inevitably be longer than the straight line anticipated. And the times are way out if any intermediate stops are expected, as suggested.

Costs would be at or above the top end of the range. There would be lots of tunnelling - the station described at Luxembourg would be at least €5bn alone - and let’s not forget it runs through the Ardennes, which even the Wehrmacht found difficult to get through.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

I think the estimates for journey times are very optimistic

They are very optimistic I admit, however physically doable. The question is at what price?

longer than the straight line anticipated

If you start the new tracks exactly at the Fretin triangle junction, straight to each station mentioned on the project, and end at the High speed Line at Bruchsal, there will be in total 422Km (dead straight line). I imagine in a real scenario 450km of new tracks could be achieved if the proper effort ($$$) is dedicated. Concerning the average speeds, I calculated an average of 350Km/h, although it could be higher. I truly believe that 7000m curve radius is definitely achievable, altough I would argue why not make it 10000m and aim for even higher maximum speeds. Make the distance between tracks 5,5m and perhaps when this line is done in 20 years, trains going @450Km/h would be the new norm.
I used the website below to track distances and elevation lines.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Profile/index.html?appid=fb052ab397f045ea999525f6b57e702e

And the times are way out if any intermediate stops are expected, as suggested.

Of course, these ideal times are transfers without stops, and I believe that some cities can offer this without any stops, such as Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich, Luxemburg, Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, Ulm, Augsburg, Basel. Trains coming from more distant and smaller cities would stop at these strategic cities before traveling non-stop to london. Those smaller or farther cities are also strategic cities which would deserve a direct route to London, however not compelling enough to have non stop service to London, therefore making a connection inbetween. Cities such as Innsbruck, Salzburg, Nüremberg, Memmingen, Kempten, Bern, Regensburg, Ingolstadt, Vienna, Chur, Vaduz, Milan. Of course, optimizing routes in order to maximize the consumer's utility and minimize waste is something very complicated, however I'm sure that extremely capable people have already developed algorithms for this.

and let’s not forget it runs through the Ardennes

Honestly, considering the complexity of several engineering projects in human history, such as the Channel Tunnel itself, and several high-speed routes cutting through the Alps, I do not believe that our best engineers and designers, with the help of the best rail tracing software are not able to resolve this issue.

I mentioned the new long distance station being built at Stuttgart airport, in 2009 the price was estimated at 52 million euro, and there is nothing special about it, and it doesn´t have to be, it is basically a 500m tunnel bored by a TBM and an island platform between two tracks, some elevatores, stairs, escalators, just like houndreds of subwaystations around the world, simple. However, I imagine at Luxembourg it would have to be 4 tracks instead of two, but one could simply copy and paste parallel stations like the one in stuttgart airport. Plus some extra emenities, but nothing too fancy as the infrastructure above would still have normal use. Honestly, I don't see the 4-platform underground station in Luxembourg costing more than 500 million euros. And all the others in the intermediate cities, with underground stations with 2 platforms, for 200 million euros each in today´s money.

 

[Bald Rick]

If you start the new tracks exactly at the Fretin triangle junction, straight to each station mentioned on the project, and end at the High speed Line at Bruchsal, there will be in total 422Km (dead straight line). I imagine in a real scenario 450km of new tracks could be achieved if the proper effort ($$$) is dedicated.

Allow a minimum of 10% extra compared to a straight line.

Concerning the average speeds, I calculated an average of 350Km/h, although it could be higher.

No chance. Very unlikely we will see any passenger services operating at greater than 360km/h (steel wheel on steel rail). Above that level, incremental energy use gets seriously high, and the extra time gained minimal. Then the timetable planners allow time for minor hiccups etc., even on brand new railways.

Best to assume an average speed of 280kph tops non stop, and that’s pushing it.

Of course, these ideal times are transfers without stops, and I believe that some cities can offer this without any stops, such as Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich, Luxemburg, Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, Ulm, Augsburg, Basel.

To pick an example close to you - there’s not enough passengers flying U.K. - Luxembourg to fill one train each way daily. What time will it go ? (Bearing in mind the flights are spread through the day). Same for Stuttgart And Basel. Obviously none for Ulm, Augsburg and Karlsruhe. Maybe 3-4 a day to each of Frankfurt, Munich, and Zurich, remembering that many passengers flying between all these cities and London are changing planes at London and unlikely to switch. (Same applies for Frankfurt). The cities you mention beyond that have token flows to London, bar Vienna and Milan.

So even if all non-connecting air passengers on these routes swapped from air to rail, and there was growth, you might have enough for a train an hour. That’s not going to pay the construction cost of a 460km+ line, not by a long way.

Honestly, considering the complexity of several engineering projects in human history, such as the Channel Tunnel itself, and several high-speed routes cutting through the Alps, I do not believe that our best engineers and designers, with the help of the best rail tracing software are not able to resolve this issue.

I’m not saying they can’t, just that it won’t be cheap. The Gotthard (max service speed 230 km/h) cost €175m per km at out turn prices (1999-2016) - you can double that now.

And all the others in the intermediate cities, with underground stations with 2 platforms, for 200 million euros each in today´s money.

Absolutely no chance. Crossrail stations, if they were being built now, would be £1bn+ each. The ‘simple’ stations you propose are twice as large. And presumably have bypass tracks so you don’t have trains belting through tunnelled platforms at 360km/h.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

Allow a minimum of 10% extra compared to a straight line.

I imagined there would be such a "constant" to have an idea of real track vs direct line length. 10%, I´ll take that.

Best to assume an average speed of 280kph tops non stop, and that’s pushing it.

I couldn´t disagree more. For example the Paris to Strassbourg route have today average speeds of 260Km/h during the whole 476Km length. And although most of it´s course consist of 270~320Km/h speed tracks, there are 20Km of outside Paris tracks @130Km/h and another 10Km in Strassbourg @130Km/h. But if you consider average speeds alone vs max rail track (320Km/h) you get a whopping 81,25%. I Believe we could strech that to at least 85% on a new planned route of 400Km/h, which would translate on avarege speeds of >340Km/h. About diminishing returns, you might be right on routes with many stops, however, as the design suggests, there would be about 440~460km of tracks without stops (each station would have a full speed bypass).

there’s not enough passengers flying U.K. - Luxembourg to fill one train each way daily

What i tried to explain is that non stop trains from Luxembourg to London would already be carrying passengers from further back, like Stuttgart, Nuremberg, Frankfurt, or Zurich. There is no doubt that luxemburg doesn´t have demand for a full 850 passenger trains by itself, that´s the beauty of trains, having the flexibility to serve demand when required and connecting cities in between. Most trains stopping in Luxemburg would be stopping in Lille anyway, there would probably be only a very few daily train non-stop to London just for the sake of it.

Absolutely no chance. Crossrail stations, if they were being built now, would be £1bn+ each. The ‘simple’ stations you propose are twice as large. And presumably have bypass tracks so you don’t have trains belting through tunnelled platforms at 360km/h.

That price would be for a 470~500m long (barebone) Station by itself, not considering bypass, connecting tunnels or amenities.

 

[Bald Rick]

I couldn´t disagree more.

You‘re free to!

But if you consider average speeds alone vs max rail track (320Km/h) you get a whopping 81,25%. I Believe we could strech that to at least 85% on a new planned route of 400Km/h, which would translate on avarege speeds of >340Km/h.

The higher the max speed, the more difficult it is to get averages closer to it, because the impact of the acceleration and braking for stops and any other restrictions (eg tunnel aerodynamics) is proportionally higher. It’s not about what you believe, it’s the laws of physics. And as I said, no high speed railway will be operating above 360 km/h. An average of 280 is prudent for planning purposes. I certainly wouldn’t go higher than 300.

That price would be for a 470~500m long (barebone) Station by itself, not considering bypass, connecting tunnels or amenities.

It’s not a station if you can’t use it!

 

[zwk500]

What i tried to explain is that non stop trains from Luxembourg to London would already be carrying passengers from further back, like Stuttgart, Nuremberg, Frankfurt, or Zurich. There is no doubt that luxemburg doesn´t have demand for a full 850 passenger trains by itself, that´s the beauty of trains, having the flexibility to serve demand when required and connecting cities in between. Most trains stopping in Luxemburg would be stopping in Lille anyway, there would probably be only a very few daily train non-stop to London just for the sake of it.

Luxembourg just wouldn't be that big a place to stop at. If you wanted a central hub that could support regular non-stop trains to London, why not concentrate the changes on Frankfurt? It's already on the ICE network, it already has strong established demand to London and it would be a hell of a lot easier to find room to do all the security and so forth than building a small-town-sized bunker underneath a tiny European capital (it's only a Grand Duchy, for heaven's sake).

 

[lindenmeyer11]

The higher the max speed, the more difficult it is to get averages closer to it, because the impact of the acceleration and braking for stops and any other restrictions (eg tunnel aerodynamics) is proportionally higher. It’s not about what you believe, it’s the laws of physics. And as I said, no high speed railway will be operating above 360 km/h. An average of 280 is prudent for planning purposes. I certainly wouldn’t go higher than 300.

I quite understand Physics as I studied it in University before Economics. And you are right, the energy of a moving object raises with the velocity squared. But than again there is also the Inercia aspect, and as I said before, the idea is that the whole project would be built on a 400Km/h track engeneering standard (We could try to push it for 450Km/h), which means most trains wouldn´t need do decelerate during the whole traverse and all tunnels and bypasses would be built to a full speed standard. Except for a few trains stopping at Luxembourg, even then the loss wouldn´t be so great as the tracks would be straight anyway (no tight curves going into city centers), and the traversed distances would be enough to accelerate to full speeds (250Km between Luxemburg and Lille and 200Km between Luxembourg and Bruchsal).

It’s not a station if you can’t use it!

You are right, i should have mentioned that connecting tunnels and bypasses were separated costs and would depend on the final architecture project. For accountability purposes I decided not to mix both costs.

Luxembourg just wouldn't be that big a place to stop at. If you wanted a central hub that could support regular non-stop trains to London, why not concentrate the changes on Frankfurt? It's already on the ICE network, it already has strong established demand to London and it would be a hell of a lot easier to find room to do all the security and so forth than building a small-town-sized bunker underneath a tiny European capital (it's only a Grand Duchy, for heaven's sake).

Probably Frankfurt will have its own infrastructure for non-stop trains to london, as well as, in my opinion, Munich and Zurich. However, this will not come easily, as previously mentioned, Germany and Switzerland have very strong habits of freedom in public transport, without turnstiles and not always controlling tickets during trips. Which makes the whole transfer experience lighter, faster and less stressful (Especially since arriving 1:30h earlier for baggage and passport control would practically make the advantage against airplanes unfeasible). They will try therefore in every possible way to reach a middle ground to avoid having to isolate platforms at their main stations. Obviously if there is no agreement, that should not be a deal breaker, and adaptations would be then granted.
I would like to invite you to check the Merklingen station between Ulm and Stuttgart. It is a high speed station built in the middle of nowhere, to serve a region completely devoid of access to high-speed trains, the nearest town Merklingen has 1890 inhabitants and regional trains will stop there every hour. What I mean is that many times the economic factor is not decisive. And Europe has these social (and environmental) issues very much ingrained in society. The construction of this station was a political decision that will bring some relief to that region at minimal cost. I agree that Luxembourg is a small country, but not taking the opportunity of the route passing through it´s backyard to build a station would be a heinous crime and as a member of the european union, it makes perfect sense to grace Luxembourg with a high-speed station and thus making it even more included in the european political-economic context. Furthermore, it makes sense to have a small interchange station to connect passengers heading to Brussels or London. I would like to emphasize the concept of the European Union, united in diversity. Several transport projects were only made possible thanks to resources from the European Union. "We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided." J. K. Rowling.

 

[zwk500]

Probably Frankfurt will have its own infrastructure for non-stop trains to london, as well as, in my opinion, Munich and Zurich. However, this will not come easily, as previously mentioned, Germany and Switzerland have very strong habits of freedom in public transport, without turnstiles and not always controlling tickets during trips. Which makes the whole transfer experience lighter, faster and less stressful (Especially since arriving 1:30h earlier for baggage and passport control would practically make the advantage against airplanes unfeasible). They will try therefore in every possible way to reach a middle ground to avoid having to isolate platforms at their main stations. Obviously if there is no agreement, that should not be a deal breaker, and adaptations would be then granted.

The obvious solution then is to concentrate the security disruption in one station, i.e. Frankfurt, and run domestic trains to onward destinations (Something that Brussels does quite well albeit often by chance for the ICE connections off the Eurostar, which are fairly popular).

I would like to invite you to check the Merklingen station between Ulm and Stuttgart. It is a high speed station built in the middle of nowhere, to serve a region completely devoid of access to high-speed trains, the nearest town Merklingen has 1890 inhabitants and regional trains will stop there every hour. What I mean is that many times the economic factor is not decisive. And Europe has these social (and environmental) issues very much ingrained in society. The construction of this station was a political decision that will bring some relief to that region at minimal cost.

I'm familiar with those stations (the French call them Beetroot stations). They are entirely political to mitigate local opposition and have frequently failed to prove their worth, being poorly sited for anybody and failing to act as effective parkways. I fail to see why a dedicated High-Speed tunnel under Luxembourg justifies the extreme costs when you could have connecting links onto the classic lines for any trains that wished to call using existing (modified) infrastructure. Then your line could take a far better alignment not constrained by the need to provide 400kph speeds underneath a medieval city.

I agree that Luxembourg is a small country, but not taking the opportunity of the route passing through it´s backyard to build a station would be a heinous crime and as a member of the european union, it makes perfect sense to grace Luxembourg with a high-speed station and thus making it even more included in the european political-economic context.

Not just a small country, but a tiny city with minimal demand. Banking business is done online now, and there's little other reason to visit Luxembourg. If you want Luxembourg to have a high-speed connection for Europe the obvious connection is into LGV Est via Metz.

Furthermore, it makes sense to have a small interchange station to connect passengers heading to Brussels or London.

Passengers for Brussels would take alternative routes via Cologne, passengers for London can connect at far more suitable places.

I would like to emphasize the concept of the European Union, united in diversity. Several transport projects were only made possible thanks to resources from the European Union.

The motto looks lovely on a tea towel, but that's as close to politicians' minds it ever gets. The EU is about competing for the pool of common resources to each countries' own national benefit. The EU contributes most to regions that are lagging behind others because it's good for everybody to do so, Luxembourg is not lagging behind in the way e.g. Italy, Spain or Portugal is.

 

[Bald Rick]

I quite understand Physics as I studied it in University before Economics. And you are right, the energy of a moving object raises with the velocity squared. But than again there is also the Inercia aspect, and as I said before, the idea is that the whole project would be built on a 400Km/h track engeneering standard (We could try to push it for 450Km/h), which means most trains wouldn´t need do desacelerate during the whole traverse and all tunnels and bypasses would be built to a full speed standard. Except for a few trains stopping at Luxembourg, even then the loss wouldn´t be so great as the tracks would be straight anyway (no tight curves going into city centers), and the traversed distances would be enough to accelerate to full speeds (250Km between Luxemburg and Lille and 200Km between Luxembourg and Bruchsal).

Aha - a physicist with economic training (or an economist with physics training) we’re a rare breed.

As this is a fantasy thread I’ll just say two points and then withdraw.

1) Various railways have studied running at speeds of more than 350 / 360 and all have declared it’s not worth it. Going to 400 saves at best 1 sec per kilometre, which even over 400 km is not 7 minutes. And yet the extra energy input for that (not quite) seven minutes is substantial. I wouldn’t want you to think that all the railway Engineers in the world who have studied this are wrong.

2) I don‘t think anywhere in the world has studied the effects of steel wheel on steel rail at 400km/h in tunnels. Bigger diameter tunnels will be a necessity, which is more Higher speed would certainly increase energy consumption further and thus require bigger cooling plant. All more expense. Then the tricky one - the aero effect of 300km/h trains (let alone 360 or 400) on tunnelled bypass routes connected to adjacent stations with platforms. That’s not been done anywhere as far as I know. I can see all sorts of complications.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

I too see so many complications, but my passionate engineer side can´t help to get excited with all those challenges.
(As a curiosity, the TBM´s used in the HS2 have a diameter of 9~10~11 meters. There are TBM's up to 17.63 m in diameter)

Luxembourg is not lagging behind

Luxemburg is definitely lagging behind concerning efficient long distance rail.

You are right, the fastest trains nowadays are designed to run at constant speeds of up to 380Km/h, thats why at first the high speed line being built in the UK will be bottlecaped at 360Km/h although the lines being built are designed to support 400Km/h of future trains. Bare in mind that the route between London and Birmingham has around 160 Km, basically a third of the project in question, and trains would be calling 2 times in between. And overall time reduction would not be so drastic, percentagewise, as in my proposal. I really don´t want to make this a HS2 topic, but comparissons can´t be avoided as both projects consider speeds of up to 400Km/h as targets. Furthermore, if this project ever got a green light, it could jumpstart dorment high speed project lines like Bratislava-Vienna-Munich or Prague-Pilsen-Nuremberg-Stuttgart-Zurich

 

[Bald Rick]

You are right, the fastest trains nowadays are designed to run at constant speeds of up to 380Km/h, thats why at first the high speed line being built in the UK will be bottlecaped at 360Km/h although the lines being built are designed to support 400Km/h of future trains.

I knew you’d mention that - only about half of HS2 is specified for 400kph.

 

[zwk500]

Luxemburg is definitely lagging behind concerning efficient long distance rail.

You don't build rail lines to have the most rail lines built. You build rail lines to serve market demand (as I'm sure you know as an economist). The EU funds infrastructure projects where regions require additional help funding improvements that unlock latent demand.
Luxembourg has the second highest GDP by Purchasing Power in the world, according to this year's IMF numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita. If you were, say, Portugal, you would feel rather put out if the EU funded a HSR to a non-member state on Luxembourg's behalf while your own railway system is in desperate need of investment, and a project such as a Lisbon-Madrid would be extremely beneficial but is not yet funded.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

Luxembourg has the second highest GDP by Purchasing Power in the world

I knew that, and they would pay their fair share of the project as usual for projects like this. I see the UK as a huge tourist and business demand magnet, the largest in Europe, and as such two important access trunks were built back in the days, the French and the Belgian. However, the most important, the most expensive and complex would be this one, which would cross a vast and complex terrain before reaching a denser region, with two major high speed rail branches at Bruchsal for the best bang for your Buck. This would be the main branch of the demand tree and for economic reasons it was obviously left for last.

I estimate that at least 90 daily flights would cease to exist if this project were to take place. And that says something for the environment.

For me, this interactive site is the best example of why this trunk must depart from Lille and pass exactly through Luxembourg:
https://www.chronotrains.com/en/station/7001424-London-St.-Pancras/5

 

[PTR 444]

Luxembourg has the second highest GDP by Purchasing Power in the world, according to this year's IMF numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita. If you were, say, Portugal, you would feel rather put out if the EU funded a HSR to a non-member state on Luxembourg's behalf while your own railway system is in desperate need of investment, and a project such as a Lisbon-Madrid would be extremely beneficial but is not yet funded.

Regarding Luxembourg, it’s often easy to forget that its population is only about that of Oxfordshire, with Luxembourg City’s population of 132,000 even smaller than even that of High Wycombe, Hastings and Grimsby. Nobody is seriously suggesting building dedicated high speed lines to any of those.

I think Luxembourg only gets the international recognition it has due to the fact that it is essentially a city state, and thus shown on international maps. If LUX were part of Belgium, only a minority of people outside of Western Europe would know it even exists at all, similar to Metz, Liege and Maastricht.

 

[zwk500]

I knew that, and they would pay their fair share of the project as usual for projects like this. I see the UK as a huge tourist and business demand magnet, the largest in Europe, and as such two important access trunks were built back in the days, the French and the Belgian. However, the most important, the most expensive and complex would be this one, which would cross a vast and complex terrain before reaching a denser region, with two major high speed rail branches at Bruchsal for the best bang for your Buck. This would be the main branch of the demand tree and for economic reasons it was obviously left for last.

I estimate that at least 45 daily flights would cease to exist if this project were to take place. And that says something for the environment.

It wouldn't be that many. Some flights would still run but with smaller planes, and others would continue as they are. London-Paris still has a very healthy air flow and that's only 2h30 on the train with departures every 2 hours.

For me, this interactive site is the best example of why this trunk must depart from Lille and pass exactly through Luxembourg:
https://www.chronotrains.com/en/station/7001424-London-St.-Pancras/5

And this interactive site explains why the routing of the line through Luxembourg is very expensive for minimal benefit: https://en-gb.topographic-map.com/map-cvtgt/Europe/?center=49.78836,4.49341&zoom=7
Compare the route Lille-Brussels-Aachen-Koeln-Frankfurt has a nice green path, while Lille-Luxembourg-Frankfurt requires 1. A diversion and 2. substantial engineering over two sets of mountains.

(Image of a topographical map of Belgium, Northeastern France and the Rhine Valley.)

Regarding Luxembourg, it’s often easy to forget that it’s population is only about that of Oxfordshire, with Luxembourg City’s population of 132,000 even smaller than even that of High Wycombe, Hastings and Grimsby. Nobody is seriously suggesting building dedicated high speed lines to any of those.

The comparison with a county is the best one, because that's exactly what Luxembourg is. It just happened to end up independent for curious historic reasons.

I think Luxembourg only gets the international recognition it has due to the fact that it is essentially a city state, and thus shown on international maps.

It's a bit more than a city state but it is certainly a microstate.

If LUX were part of Belgium, only a minority of people outside of Western Europe would know it even exists at all, similar to Metz, Liege and Maastricht.

100%. And of those 3, Metz is known for the battles, Liege has a reasonably well known football team, and Maastricht has the Treaty.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

Regarding Luxembourg, it’s often easy to forget that its population is only about that of Oxfordshire, with Luxembourg City’s population of 132,000 even smaller than even that of High Wycombe, Hastings and Grimsby. Nobody is seriously suggesting building dedicated high speed lines to any of those.

An interchange station makes sense at some point along its 450Km line, preferably more or less in the middle of it. As there is the option of serving a country's capital, without deviating almost anything from the "ideal" axis, it was a no-brainer. The same way as the Birmingham Interchange Station, it was chosen where it is because there is an international airport next to it, no-brainer.

It wouldn't be that many. Some flights would still run but with smaller planes, and others would continue as they are. London-Paris still has a very healthy air flow and that's only 2h30 on the train with departures every 2 hours.

After the Channel Tunnel opened, there was a drop by half on air travelers between Paris and London.

​

 

[PTR 444]

Liege has a reasonably well known football team

And waffles, for that matter.

But I agree, those three cities aren’t big enough to warrant a dedicated high speed connection (Liege is an exception as it is an important intermediate market on the Brussels - Cologne route). It also explains the reason why the LGV Est bypasses Metz rather than going through it. If a hypothetical Lille - Bruchsal line is about boosting UK - Germany journey times, it would probably make more sense for it to bypass LUX and instead serve it via a spur to the classic Metz - Luxembourg railway.

 

[zwk500]

But I agree, those three cities aren’t big enough to warrant a dedicated high speed connection (Liege is an exception as it is an important intermediate market on the Brussels - Cologne route).

This is a big point - Liege gets a stop because it's a big market on the path of the main route (it's a metro area of 750k and the heart of industrial Wallonia with the Meuse giving access to Charleroi), but would not on it's own justify dedicated links. If a Eurostar service to Cologne ever materialised, I would be surprised if Liege was included as a stop.

 

[Bald Rick]

I estimate that at least 45 daily flights would cease to exist if this project were to take place.

Neatly summarising the problem.

For most of the city pairs these flights serve, air is almost all the passenger flow, and certainly so for London. Therefore there are few existing rail travellers or road travellers who will reap benefit from much improved journey times. Nor passengers to divert from existing services / lines to free up capacity for other services including freight. All of which is a big part of the business case for most (if not all) high speed lines.

And c 45 flights a day - that’s enough for 5 reasonably filled trains a day each way. (Assuming you meant 45 total, not 45 each way). Even if you meant 45 each way - which I agree with @zwk500 is a courageous assumption to say the least - that’s 10 trains each way daily. Allow 60% growth, and it’s still only a train an hour. For an investment (optimistically) €50bn. The dunes just don’t get close to adding up. Governments will get far greater benefit for society and decarbonisation using that cash elsewhere.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

Assuming you meant 45 total, not 45 each way

Sorry, I meant each way. More like 90~100 flights, not only to London, but to Brussels and Amsterdam as well, i will edit that post.

I just looked up the number of direct flights from Frankfurt to London and there are around 12 flights a day, from Stuttgart 4~5 a day, Luxembourg 1, Munich 10~11, Zurich 9~10, Nuremberg 2, Salzburg 3, Basel 4 , Karlsruhe 1, Memmingen 1. Flights from and to Brussels would also be affected, today there are 4 daily flights from Brussels to Munich, 3 to Zürich, 1 to Basel, 2 to Strassbourg, 2 to Frankfurt, 4 to Vienna. There are also 4 direct flights from Amsterdam to Stuttgart, 1 to Luxembourg, 2 to Zürich, 4 to Basel, 17 to Munich. And from those flights, I calculate that half of them could be substituted by trains.

Some of the flight routes that would be affected

 

[30907]

An interchange station makes sense at some point along its 450Km line, preferably more or less in the middle of it. As there is the option of serving a country's capital, without deviating almost anything from the "ideal" axis, it was a no-brainer. The same way as the Birmingham Interchange Station, it was chosen where it is because there is an international airport next to it, no-brainer.

I think you will find that Birmingham International serves (1) London travellers from the wealthiest parts of the West Midlands - previously they used Hampton-in-Arden - (2) visitors to the National Exhibition Centre which was deliberately located with rail and motorway access in kind and only (3) local airport traffic. So a combination of Hamburg-Harburg, Hannover Messe and Duesseldorf Flughafen which would be difficult to replicate at Luxembourg (or any other similar location such as Saarbrücken or Metz).

Some of the flight routes that would be affected

...the list which suggests that Frankfurt might be the priority rather than Stuttgart (sorry!), as DB were proposing years ago, and if there was enough demand a sub-5hr timing via Aachen could easily be achieved on the present infrastructure.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

The numbers for direct trains between Paris, Brussels and London clearly illustrate the impact of baggage and passport control on the choice between flying or taking the train. There are (each way) 16 daily trains between Paris and London, against 21 between Paris and Brussels and only 9 between Brussels and London. I extrapolate that if an agreement were reached in which luggage was not controlled and passports were controlled during the trip inside the train, the number of trains between Brussels and London would jump to around 23 per day, and between Paris and London would jump to around 41. I understand the political imbroglio of the Schengen zone and UK, but having to arrive >1:30h earlier at the train station is a huge hindrance, with the environment being the biggest loser.

In an ideal scenario, I believe it would be possible to have at least 100 daily trains each way on the proposed route, between regional, from Karlsruhe to Lille calling in every city in between (every hour, from 5:00 to 22:00), night trains (>20 trains per day) and express trains, 200m or 400m (say 20 heading to Brussels and 50 to london). It is important to point out that many of these stretches of routes already exist in germany, switzerland and austria and would be replaced by trains heading to London/Brussels, many routes would substitute deficient regional lines of trains and busses, and many routes not possible at all by trains, being done by car, would change to trains. Again in an ideal world, such ease of transportation would boost tourism due to the simplicity of boarding a train.

 

[zwk500]

If Schengen is joined and luggage security removed, then its a totally different situation. But they are what they are and that is not changing any time soon.

 

[Bald Rick]

I extrapolate that if an agreement were reached in which luggage was not controlled and passports were controlled during the trip inside the train, the number of trains between Brussels and London would jump to around 23 per day, and between Paris and London would jump to around 55.

How do you extrapolate that? 55 trains a day each way between Paris and London is 32m passengers a year. That’s nearly 4 times the highest ever combined air/rail market, and more than 5 times what it is now.

(Leaving aside that there is not capacity in the Channel Tunnel, HS1 nor St Pancras for this level of service).

 

[lindenmeyer11]

then its a totally different situation

Like I said "In an ideal scenario"

is not changing any time soon

I see it differently, but anyway, not worth getting into this discussion. Bare in mind that by the new rules, new EU members MUST join Schengen Zone and adopt EURO.

How do you extrapolate that?

Well, London has ~10% more visistors per year than Paris, (9,53% to be exact, data from 2018), therefore, if there are 21 daily trains between Paris and Brussels (no baggage check or Passport controls.) 9,53% on top of that would be 23 Daily trains to London (also London´s conurbation is 6,1% bigger than Paris). Also, contrary to Paris Nord, from St. Pancras station you can reach most of UK. Which means that Luggage control and Passport checks has an impact ~2,55x (23/9). So if there are 16 trains From London to Paris times 2,55=41 (my bad, initially I multiplied 2,55 times 21 and not 16. Already corrected)

 

[zwk500]

I see it differently, but anyway, not worth getting into this discussion. Bare in mind that by the new rules, new EU members MUST join Schengen Zone and adopt EURO.

The UK will not be rejoining for a political generation. At Least. You are talking 20 years before it even gets back to being a serious topic. The another 10 before we get to the point of voting (probably in a GE as part of a manifesto not a Referendum).
And then God knows how long to negotiate the reentry.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well, London has ~10% more visistors per year than Paris, (9,53% to be exact, data from 2018), therefore, if there are 21 daily trains between Paris and Brussels (no baggage check or Passport controls.) 9,53% on top of that would be 23 Daily trains to London (also London´s conurbation is 6,1% bigger than Paris). Also, contrary to Paris Nord, from St. Pancras station you can reach most of UK. Which means that Luggage control and Passport checks has an impact ~2,55x (23/9). So if there are 16 trains From London to Paris times 2,55=41 (my bad, initially I multiplied 2,55 times 21 and not 16. Already corrected)

Leaving aside the heroic assumption that visitor numbers to London and Paris are directly proportional to the number of Eurostar departures, where does the 2.55 multiplier come from?

 

[lindenmeyer11]

where does the 2.55 multiplier come from?

The number of direct trains from Brussels to London if there was no border control (23) divided by what it is today (9).

Leaving aside the heroic assumption that visitor numbers to London and Paris are directly proportional to the number of Eurostar departures

Do you think it makes any sense to have 31% more trains from Paris to Brussels then to London?