Pininfarina contracted to overhaul Eurostar chunnel train
Unless you've got access to a continent-gobbling exotic GT and an immunity to speeding tickets, everyone who's ever traveled Europe knows that the preferred way of getting around the Old World is via train. (Heck, even us car-crazed nuts here at Autoblog take the train for European auto shows.) But for one high-speed train service, the experience is about to get a little bit more... automotive.
Pininfarina, the same Italian design house responsible for dozens of Ferraris and countless other automotive designs throughout the decades, has been awarded the contract to refurbish the train cars for the Eurostar line. Running between Britain, France and Belgium through the English channel, the Eurostar train travels at speeds of up to 300 km/h (186 mph), making it from London to Paris in two hours and fifteen minutes. However, the high-class, high-speed trains haven't been redone since going into operation some 15 years ago. While Ferrari's Luca di Montezemolo gets behind the project to build a high-speed train system in Italy, the first of Pininfarina's refurbished Eurostar trains is expected to hit the rails in 2012.
[Source: Autocar]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Steve 8:09AM (4/14/2009)
Should be interesting. I have a Pininfarina external Hard Drive, and it looks alot like... that train in that photo.
Either way, should be nice.
Reply
Jei 8:30AM (4/14/2009)
Hopefully, Eurostar has received a lot of calls from American companies and govt officials requesting additional information about how to build a train system like this in the US.
Ohio, for example, doesn't necessarily need a "high speed" train, but a dedicated rail system from Cleveland to Columbus to Cincy would be nice. I'm sure there are a few other wide states that would benefit from such a system....and it would help to decrease the ridiculous traffic on the highways b/t the cities, possibly making them safer.
Reply
EU_reader 8:44AM (4/14/2009)
If you think this is impressive.... then you're absolutely right :p
But kidding aside, take a look at the high speed rail system in Japan. Top Gear UK season 11 episode 4.
In Japan, these trains are considered late when they are one minute too late. Even so, they get a rating of 90%+ of arrivals on time.
Anyway, the chunnel then (channel tunnel). One of the most impressive constructural feats ever. They started drilling this from both sides. When both drillmachines met in the middle, they ended up perfectly aligned. Since there's no way to backtrack these tunnel diggers, they directed one of them under the other and left it there (under the tunnel) Needless to say one of these costs a fortune.
You can get your cars in that train and drive out the other side. It's quick, easy, refreshing... You just have to sit and wait, read a bit or sleep and half an hour later you're out on the other side (coast to coast).
It's very competitive to a plane for short distances. There's no need for endless check-in procedures or getting there one hour early. Not liable to bad weather, more comfortable to walk around in. More spacious seats and a much smoother ride. Brussel-London on a plane versus the chunnel train... I think i'd take the chunnel train every time.
It's not to cheap, pricewise. But neither are train tickets, or the toll booths on France highways plus gas for your car.
I don't know how train is organised in the states. But connecting major metropoles with high speed train should be a number one priority. It provides jobs for people in industrial jobs (cement and concrete for the tracks, wagons for the trains, so that's mechanical and electrical)
Off course, US geographical features might be an issue (mountains and such) but if we can run a train under a sea, then you should be able to drill through a mountain...
EU_reader 8:49AM (4/14/2009)
train isn't cheap, but neither are PLANE tickets (is what i meant to say)
Swede 9:03AM (4/14/2009)
Problem is plane tickets are pretty consistent in their pricing, train tickets are just silly. One day it's €50, next day is €100. Planes usually ends up being cheaper, which is strange in a way.
jim 9:21AM (4/14/2009)
Another nice thing about train travel in Europe is that you embark, arrive in the central city, rather than some god forsaken former pasture that can be 25-30 miles out of the city.
Kitko 9:51AM (4/14/2009)
I beg to differ, I used Eurostar several times and prices were consistent, but the fact is I always bought them 3-4 weeks before the journey, the cheapest standard fare was 59 GBP return from London to Paris, the highest 79 GBP and that was over 3 years.
Anyway, it was really great, starting at Waterloo station in Central London, getting in Paris Centre. Perfect and much better and simpler than travelling from London to Paris by a plane.
Travelling by car, though, I usually took a ferry, it's still much cheaper. Around 100 GBP return vs 350 one way on Eurostar, but I took the train only once.
Ken 10:25AM (4/14/2009)
I wish high-speed rail was more popular in the US as well, but even where it is available, for some reason people don't like to use it. The train from where I live to Chicago isn't really any cheaper than buying gas to get to there in a small car so a lot of people just choose to drive so they'll have their cars available. I prefer to use public transportation, especially in cities where parking is a pain, but too often it's just not available.
why not the LS2LS7? 10:55AM (4/14/2009)
The Eurostar no longer leaves from Waterloo station. It now leaves from St. Pancras and has a dedicated track (most of it tunnel) all the way around the east end of town. This made the Eurostar even faster, now the only part of the journey where you trundle along at regular speeds (100km/h or less) is the last bit near Paris, as it meanders its way onto regular tracks about 10km north of the city and into Gare du Nord.
It's great going from downtown to downtown. But price-wise, the rise of low-cost airlines like Ryan Air and EasyJet have dealt the Eurostar a blow almost as large as they have other train services in Europe. As much as Americans would like to talk about the romance of riding rails across Europe, Europe is migrating to planes.
Matthew 3:16PM (4/14/2009)
I agree HSR is becoming less competitive in Europe thanks to the strong decrease in regional airfares. For instance it's significantly cheaper to get a return ticket from Paris to Marseilles by Air France (not a low-cost!) compared to the TGV equivalent when you plan it in the current week (sth like 120€ vs 180€). The TGV becomes more interesting when you plan your trip more in advance ("prem's" tickets at 39 € or so). TGV still means MUCH less hassle than a plane trip: more comfort, no tiresome check-ins, no need to commute between city centre and airport, and you get enough time to put the finishing touches to you Powerpoint presentation on your laptop (that's why HSR often remains preferred to air for business trips in Europe)!
Metar 9:04AM (4/14/2009)
Man, I love those Eurostars. I still remember the assignment I did on them in the first grade.
Train-transport is so simple and convenient when the system is well-developed. I'm reminded of it every time I visit Europe... Sadly, it's not very cheap - a ticket from Frankfurt to Berlin costs as much as a plane-ticket does these days.
Reply
Ronman 9:13AM (4/14/2009)
if i'm not mistaken, Pininfarina designed the new surface trams in Athens for the olympics. i saw them run in 2005, they are not all that nice. i thought they would look better. the classic TGV still gets my vote.
i would appreciate if a Greek reader, or even an Athenian confirm that and post a picture if i'm right....
Reply
Bill 9:14AM (4/14/2009)
Being an American who has spent the last few months in Europe, I can say without a doubt that the Eurostar was the single most convenient, hassle-free, travel experience I have had in my whole life (short of a chartered jet, that is).
In Paris, you show up at the train station, swipe your credit card, grab your tickets, go through minor security/customs (simple x-ray... no taking off shoes/jackets/etc) and then jump on the train. If you miss it, there's usually another one leaving within an hour (if not sooner).
Once on board, it's smooth sailing. Decent sized seats, food, drinks, plenty of space to walk around. It's wonderful.
That being said, it is a bit expensive. I lucked out and was able to get Paris -> London round trip for something like 80 euro. It's just so much more convenient than flying it is well worth the minor additional expense.
Being from the mid-west, I really wish we had something like this to connect Minneapolis - Milwaukee - Chicago. It would be wonderful!
Reply
EU_reader 9:47AM (4/14/2009)
True, they need to get their prices figured out a bit.
But if I remember correctly, there were endless conflicts between britain and france when building this. That's why they started each on their side, instead of tunneling trough from one side to the other. I'm sure it's got a lot to do with revenue, splitting of the investment, pride and credentials for the project.
Because of that it turned out more expensive than estimated, which is why the business-model hasn't settled down yet.
Anyway, when you book in advance it's possible to get cheaper tickets. I'm not sure you can get a plane ticket for a round trip Paris-London-Paris for 80 euros. Bear in mind that low cost airlines usually don't fly from airports like 'de gaulle' or 'london stansted' but instead out of minor airports in the vicinity. It's not only often 30-40 miles OUT of any major city, but like I said, you need to get there early and it's quite the hassle.
But anyway, even is 80 euros is more expensive (let's say 20 euros more). It's absolutely worth it. Not having to drive up to a busy airport, finding a parking space, getting there one hour in advance, having your planes delayed because some douchebag is on the wrong plane or is afraid of flying. No turbulence, no excessive noise, no cramped seats.... Having to check out on the other side, looking for a bus/taxi/train to get to london itself. Been there, done that, no thank you.
There's no compairing a low cost airline to a comfortable ride on the tgv. So for me it's well worth it. Off course, with longer distances, the plane gets back in the picture.
Maglev trains would be even superior.
Evidently, the US is much bigger, so I don't know what the average distance is between your biggest metropoles. But it's certainly something worth checking out...
Look up on google: "Thalys interior" 1st class and 2nd class. You won't find that on a plane.
EU_reader 9:48AM (4/14/2009)
Since the US is one nation, you won't have that interstate rivalry for the project, inflating project prices. So normally you should be spared from this sort of politics...
Bill 10:03AM (4/14/2009)
Sorry, I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. I found 80 euro to be quite reasonable, but I have seen it go up to as much as 150 euro if not more for Paris - London round trip.
Don't even get me started on the budget airlines... yeah, the ticket is like 30 euro... but then you have to take the shuttle to the airport (15 euro), plus 20 euro per bag you want to check, plus 10 euro to check in (if you have non EU passport)... plus the shuttle on the other end.
I've done a lot of flying out of "Paris" Beauvais... which really isn't anywhere near Paris. The train is significantly more convenient (and usually cheaper... depending on where you're going).
I had the opportunity recently to ride a Thaly's train Paris - Amsterdam and back. It was wonderful. I wasn't in first class, but even in 2nd, they offered wi-fi (for a price... I think it was 10 euro for the duration of the trip). I looked into the 1st class cars and they looked amazing.
The distance between large cities in the US is much larger, I believe, than in Europe. For example, it is ~400 miles (~645km) between Chicago and Minneapolis. This is quite a large distance, but not outrageous. The distance between Paris and Amsterdam is ~500km (~310 miles), which is only slightly less.
The problem occurs once you try to connect the west with the midwest with the east. I believe regional trains would work very well here, but traveling cross-country by train just isn't feasible.
Ken 10:33AM (4/14/2009)
@Bill
I think if they marketed the train ride as an event in itself it could become a feasible alternative for vacationers versus flying, especially those with children. You'd also have the market cornered for those afraid to fly.
Otherwise, I agree with you, more localized rail services would be very nice in the US if the population's mentality could be shifted to accept mass transit in place of what traditionally is a drive for people, but for New York to LA people are just better off flying.
It always amazed me living in Germany that from one end of the country to the other was essentially a six hour drive. It takes me just a bit less than that to drive from the southern end of Illinois to Chicago.
Epyx 10:48AM (4/14/2009)
Bill,
I would like to see regional high speed rail as well. I love the Euro train system and have only had great experiences as you have also commented on.
East Coast - Boston, New York, Philly, DC, Richmond, and Atlanta could easily be linked with HS rail.
West Coast - San Diego, LA, San Fran, Portland, Seattle
Midwest/East - Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago, Indianapolis, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philly
Ohio - Cleveland, Columbus, Cinci
Trains already link these cities but they are not anywhere near the level of the Euro and Japanese offerings. Amtrak is not a good representative for rail service as freight always has the right-away, causing delays for the passenger trains. Trains are not fast as the use the low speed freight rails, fancy, or particularly convenient. Trains in the US compete with buses not planes. This is unfortunate as properly executed train service would be wonderful.
why not the LS2LS7? 11:09AM (4/14/2009)
There were no conflicts when making the chunnel. They started from both sides, but that was considered desirable. It is the norm on any decent-sized tunneling project now (now that we know how to get the ends to line up properly in the middle). The tunneling on both ends was done on behalf of a single company, so there was no financial competition either.
The cost was very high, but the business model has pretty much settled down. The business model is "ferry freight through the tunnel". The Eurostar is not the biggest user of the tunnel by far, the car and (more importantly) truck carrying trains that only run the length of the tunnel (and not Paris to London) are the big moneymaker. When the tunnel caught fire last time, it was a near-emergency for freight, the shutdown of passenger rail was a minor issue.
Eurostar ran pretty smoothly for me, despite the fact that the tunnel fire had occurred only a month before, and one tunnel was still partially shut down. However, the jerks wanted you to show an hour early for the train (due to the service disruption) but they didn't show at St. Pancras until 45 minutes before the train and didn't start processing tickets/customers until about 40 minutes before the train left. When there is no disruption, it is possible to show about 30 minutes before the train, or even 10 minutes before the train if you have a first class ticket. It's likely that at non-peak times even regular customers could get away with showing only 10 minutes before the train. As another bonus to the speediness, you can carry on just about as much luggage as you want, no waiting at a carousel when you get there for your baggage to come out.
The customs thing was okay. You have a metal detector and that's about it. No taking your shoes off or anything (of course, you don't do that on planes in Europe either). They might X-ray your luggage too, but if they do, they don't take it too seriously. You still have to go to passport control also. If you take the Eurostar from Paris to Brussels, it leaves from a regular track and there is no passport control or customs at all. The UK has not signed some accord (and likely will not) which would make it possible to travel Eurostar between Paris and London without security or customs.
why not the LS2LS7? 11:15AM (4/14/2009)
Epyx:
No one is going to take the train from Seattle to San Diego. The trains only go about 180mph. A plan goes over 550mph. A plane can do it in 3 hours, a high speed train would take 9 or 10. Even the high speed rail project California has (sort of) approved from San Francisco to LA is borderline. It'll take about 3 hours on the rails. So the only advantage the train has is it goes "downtown to downtown". But who wants to end up in downtown LA? Very few people.
This is the US main problem. It's really big. And not very densely populated. I love the idea of high speed trains, but IMHO, the only high speed rail in the US that makes sense is Boston to D.C. with some stops in between (basically the Acela route). You'll have a lot of customers, but getting the rights of way to run the tracks will be near impossible, which is why Acela shares rights of way and part of why it doesn't work well, it gets held up behind freight trains all the time.