audere, then you should be even more disappointed in the film Naked Lunch....

Back on topic: I believe Eurostar is comparing themselves to themselves, and is not making boasts of an absolute kind with regard to rate o speed; their point is that the service with the station at St. Pancras instead of Waterloo is going to be faster.

audere_est_facere - Thanks for the clarification. Somehow I thought privatisation happened earlier. In this case, I now firmly believe it was a horrible move by the Major government.

>Spain apparently is due to take over the in-service passenger speed record soon when the Barcelona-Madrid high-speed line is put into full operation - these TGV i think trains are scheduled to blow along at about 205 mph -

At the risk of having to go out and buy an anorak - RENFE is going to use german ICE trains (renamed Velaro or so) and originally Spanish high-speed Talgo variants for the Barcelona connection.

>Do I detect some sour grapes from across the big pond....

Nope. Just surprised that Eurostar is proud that it takes about the same time to go a similar distance as Amtrak. Big deal. :)

((I))

But America only has one such line. Europe (sadly not Britain) is covered by them.

Amtrak is a freight line for most part.

AMTRAK is not a freight line. Its Northeast Corridor is a passenger service on a dedicated passenger line, from Washington to Boston.

In California, it also runs some successful corridor passenger trains with shared tracks.

The problem is on the long-distance routes where it is one train a day on busy freight routes owned and managed by freight companies.

'Nope. Just surprised that Eurostar is proud that it takes about the same time to go a similar distance as Amtrak. Big deal'

But it doesn't does it? It covers 30 miles (50 k) MORE in 20 minutes LESS. Plus it has to slow down under the sea (so the yanks can look for fishes etc according to a previous post! 8-) ).

"In California, it also runs some successful corridor passenger trains with shared tracks."

Let's see. San Diego to Los Angeles is 128 miles, about the same distance as Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington.

The California route has 12 trains daily, each taking about 2 hrs 40 minutes. That is 48 mile per hour.

The English route has 33 trains daily, each taking about 1 hr 40 minutes. That is 80 miles per hour.

And there are also 31 different trains daily from Bristol Parkway (north of the city) to London Paddington. They take about 90 minutes, running at 85 miles per hour. On both routes, the passenger trains have to mix it with goods trains running at 60 miles per hour, and with other passenger trains, both local and long distance.

>AMTRAK is not a freight line. <

Correct. I think that it is the only passenger line we still have.

Chartley has reinforced my point. Any trains that are on a par with Amtrak, aren't worth cheering about.

((I))

Sorry, i've got my terminolgy wrong.

Amtrak is a passenger serrvice but the rails it runs on are freight rails. Freight trains take priority.

Now i'll go back to looking for pictures of A4 Pacific Class locomotives (which still hold the speed record for steam trains - 126 mph by the Mallard)

chartley - The Pacific Surfliner has enough passengers to run up to a dozen trains a day. And the San Joaquin 6. That's <b>huge success</b> for AMTRAK.

My point isn't to compare that with other countries. But that AMTRAK does have some success on routes like those and in the NE. If resources weren't totally wasted on the money-hemorrhaging long distance trains, these useful services can be upgraded and make them at least a consideration for people going from, say LA to San Diego.

t